Sinful to surf internet on neighbor's or neighboring business's Wi-Fi connection?

[flyingfish]

Is it actually illegal to use someone’s unsecured wireless connection? It’s not hacking because you’re not trying to break the security, the owner of the network left it so that anyone is able to connect to it.

Maybe a more practical thing to do would be to talk to your neighbor and offer to pay him a little bit each month for the use of the wireless. I don’t know what internet is like where you are, but here unlimited broadband internet is cheap and your neighbor would probably be glad to let you use his internet.

 

[John21652]

The wifi is on the street, the neighbor pretty much left the wifi open to anyone and everyone in range. For all we know, he might be someone who actually believes in letting others use his wifi and that’s why he left it open to everyone who wants to connect.

The wifi signal is on the street, but it emanates from someone’s home. I put the ten dollar note in someone’s home to more easily establish ownership of it. It is harder with the wifi, obviously.

The point is, by hooking into the wifi signal you are assuming that because it isn’t secured that the owner places little value on it. By taking the ten dollar note off the kitchen table, and saying to yourself he wont miss it because it wasn’t secured, is doing the same thing. You take what is not yours and rationalise away the ‘taking’ by ascribing to the item a low value because it wasn’t secured.

Because it is so much easier to establish ownership of the ten dollar note, it is easier to establish ‘theft’. In the case of the wifi signal, with ‘ownership’ harder to establish, it is encumbent on the ‘finder’ to make all reasonable attempts at establishing ownership. To do otherwise is negligent. To do otherwise and simply use the signal is theft.
In the UK and Australia it is ‘Theft by Finding’. In the US it is Larcency of a service.

With the ability to make assumptions regarding ownership and value, you can rationalise the taking of just about anything you desire.

 

[flyingfish]

The wifi signal is on the street, but it emanates from someone’s home. I put the ten dollar note in someone’s home to more easily establish ownership of it. It is harder with the wifi, obviously.

The point is, by hooking into the wifi signal you are assuming that because it isn’t secured that the owner places little value on it. By taking the ten dollar note off the kitchen table, and saying to yourself he wont miss it because it wasn’t secured, is doing the same thing. You take what is not yours and rationalise away the ‘taking’ by ascribing to the item a low value because it wasn’t secured.

Because it is so much easier to establish ownership of the ten dollar note, it is easier to establish ‘theft’. In the case of the wifi signal, with ‘ownership’ harder to establish, it is encumbent on the ‘finder’ to make all reasonable attempts at establishing ownership. To do otherwise is negligent. To do otherwise and simply use the signal is theft.
In the UK and Australia it is ‘Theft by Finding’. In the US it is Larcency of a service.

With the ability to make assumptions regarding ownership and value, you can rationalise the taking of just about anything you desire.

I don’t think your analogy works because on the one hand someone keeps the money in their home, on the other someone doesn’t put a password on their wireless and broadcasts it for all to connect. If you take someone’s money, they don’t have it anymore, but if the person doesn’t want to share their wireless all they’d have to do is put a password on the network and kick everyone off.

It’s interesting though that it’s considered illegal to use unprotected networks in Australia and UK. It doesn’t seem like a fair law to me. It would make sense to punish people who hack into other people’s networks, but if the person willingly broadcasts it for all to use…

 

[michaeldaniels]

Well, I am not talking about on the street…this signal is picked up clearly inside my house. In reality, there is an unwanted signal in my house…it originates from an unknown point and is coming through my walls…I am not seeking it out…it is just there. So is whoever is broadcasting this signal wrong for broadcasting it into my house without my permission? I have tried to look up SC laws, but have been unable to find them regarding this…I do not want to do anything illegal or immoral…in the meantime, I am using my air card through T-Mobile.

 

[KarenElissa]

Is it actually illegal to use someone’s unsecured wireless connection? It’s not hacking because you’re not trying to break the security, the owner of the network left it so that anyone is able to connect to it.

Maybe a more practical thing to do would be to talk to your neighbor and offer to pay him a little bit each month for the use of the wireless. I don’t know what internet is like where you are, but here unlimited broadband internet is cheap and your neighbor would probably be glad to let you use his internet.

The legality issue is very vague. In a few places it is definitely illegal, but in most places it is a grey area without much, if any, precedent.

 

[JohnnyK]

not sure about the legality, but to me, it’s stealing, so I wouldn’t do it. if the person intended you to have access to it, different story.

 

[John21652]

Well, I am not talking about on the street…this signal is picked up clearly inside my house. In reality, there is an unwanted signal in my house…it originates from an unknown point and is coming through my walls…I am not seeking it out…it is just there. So is whoever is broadcasting this signal wrong for broadcasting it into my house without my permission? I have tried to look up SC laws, but have been unable to find them regarding this…I do not want to do anything illegal or immoral…in the meantime, I am using my air card through T-Mobile.

There would be radio and TV signals entering your house as well. Probably covering a multitude of bands too. Are the TV channels you are not watching unwanted? There are probably aircraft radio traffic entering your house through your walls too. You cannot pick them up without the proper receiver. You probably even have radio waves which originated in space passing through your walls. That is the nature of radio waves. Can you say they all these are ‘unwanted’? Hardly, because in the case of the human generated radio waves, they give you the option of using them is you so desire. The wifi signal enters your house, but it does not cause any nuisance to you, or any other inconvenience. It is benign. However, once you have used it, your ‘unwanted signal’ argument falls down dead.

However, the argument is not about the signal, per se, but the access point. You can only hook into the signal through an access point which is in a neighbour’s house. If you access through his connection, then you are using what he has paid for. You cannot assume that he has deliberately left the access point unsecured.

flyingfish wrote the owner of the network left it so that anyone is able to connect to it, but that is merely an assumption.

 

[flyingfish]

flyingfish wrote the owner of the network left it so that anyone is able to connect to it, but that is merely an assumption.

I guess, but it’s backed up by evidence of the network being publicly available. People generally put passwords on their networks when they don’t want people connecting to them.

 

[LilyM]

I guess, but it’s backed up by evidence of the network being publicly available. People generally put passwords on their networks when they don’t want people connecting to them.

And people who don’t put a password on generally DON’T intend by that fact to make them publicly available either. It’s far more likely that they either forget or intend others in their household to use it but not others (and don’t realise that people outside the house can hack in) or something of that nature.

Again, you might leave your car in the street with the key in the ignition, but no-one has any right to assume from such behaviour that you intend to make the car ‘publicly available’. 99% of the time it’ll be some sort of mistake or error on your part rather than intentional.

And the fact you did leave it in that fashion won’t prevent a charge of theft being levelled against someone who takes it - after all, they are appropriating something they don’t own, that you own.

 

[John21652]

And people who don’t put a password on generally DON’T intend by that fact to make them publicly available either. It’s far more likely that they either forget or intend others in their household to use it but not others (and don’t realise that people outside the house can hack in) or something of that nature.

Again, you might leave your car in the street with the key in the ignition, but no-one has any right to assume from such behaviour that you intend to make the car ‘publicly available’. 99% of the time it’ll be some sort of mistake or error on your part rather than intentional.

And the fact you did leave it in that fashion won’t prevent a charge of theft being levelled against someone who takes it - after all, they are appropriating something they don’t own, that you own.

 

[flyingfish]

And people who don’t put a password on generally DON’T intend by that fact to make them publicly available either. It’s far more likely that they either forget or intend others in their household to use it but not others (and don’t realise that people outside the house can hack in) or something of that nature.

Again, you might leave your car in the street with the key in the ignition, but no-one has any right to assume from such behaviour that you intend to make the car ‘publicly available’. 99% of the time it’ll be some sort of mistake or error on your part rather than intentional.

And the fact you did leave it in that fashion won’t prevent a charge of theft being levelled against someone who takes it - after all, they are appropriating something they don’t own, that you own.

I don’t think comparing wifi to a physical possession is accurate though. It’s only accurate in the case where the person has limited internet, or if they pay per use. If someone gets unlimited internet and pays the same, then using their internet won’t take anything away from them unless you’re downloading and slowing the connection down.

Maybe someone has this kind of internet, and leaves the network unprotected when they are not using it themselves, to the point where they don’t even care if someone downloads.

It’s not unreasonable to imagine some generous person who makes their internet public either all the time or when he’s not using it out of beliefs about sharing, or maybe beliefs that providers charge too much and so on.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think comparing wifi to a physical possession is accurate though. It’s only accurate in the case where the person has limited internet, or if they pay per use. If someone gets unlimited internet and pays the same, then using their internet won’t take anything away from them unless you’re downloading and slowing the connection down.

Maybe someone has this kind of internet, and leaves the network unprotected when they are not using it themselves, to the point where they don’t even care if someone downloads.

It’s not unreasonable to imagine some generous person who makes their internet public either all the time or when he’s not using it out of beliefs about sharing, or maybe beliefs that providers charge too much and so on.

Your ‘maybes’ and ‘not unreasonable’ imaginings are still not nearly enough justification for simply jumping onto someone’s internet merely because they’ve not protected it.

That would be taking an unwarranted liberty with what is, whether physical or not, nonetheless someone else’s property that they alone have paid for the privilege of using. And not your property in any fashion, since you have not.

Fact is, the person who paid for that wireless service has every right to forbid their own children or employees from using it if they so choose, how much more so their neighbours. Regardless of passwords or not, it would be a moral wrong for a child or employee thus forbidden to in fact use it.

Your arguments are justification for thinking MAYBE they’d be OK with it. Justification for following up by asking them if they ARE OK with it, and then using it if they give permission, but not otherwise.

 

[stringbeanduck]

If yall are neighbors it would be rude to using thier internet without asking or co-paying. Because too many people on one server can bog it down. However if your crusin through town and need to get on the internet for something and find an unsecured signal floating around I see nothing wrong with. Remember the golden rule. I certainly have no problem if somebody caught my signal and used the internet if they were lost or something. However it doesn’t seem right to use a neighbors internet continuously without asking.

 

[flyingfish]

So I have been googling this, and apparently if you leave your network uprotected and someone uses it to engage in illegal activity like child porn or downloading, you could be held responsible for it in at least some places.

Secure your networks people.

 

[stringbeanduck]

So I have been googling this, and apparently if you leave your network uprotected and someone uses it to engage in illegal activity like child porn or downloading, you could be held responsible for it in at least some places.

Secure your networks people.

Oh yeah!. Not only that, there are nut jobs who will use your network with high tech stuff to get ahold of your information. Most people who have internet, often make some transaction or give out personal info to another person(s), which means if you don’t secure your network one of those high tech criminals might be able to view it.