Ethics/legality of using other people's wireless networks

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2006-04-21 01:52am

Look, I'm not saying it's peachy, I'm just saying it's not like you're breaking a window and running off with a DVD player. If you equip your PC to broadcast wirelessly, and leave it configured to accept return signals, you're pretty much giving away anything there is to steal.

It's rather like owning a robot that for some reason is programmed to grab random pieces of property out of your house and give them to your neighbors. Yes, it's unethical for your neighbors to keep your shit just because you're too stupid to either reprogram your robot or quit letting it out of the house. But it's not like they broke down the door to rob you.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-04-21 02:03am

Lord Shaithis I hereby declare yours the outright most hilarious of all the analogies presented in this thread.

Your award is this poem from the SA forums:

A thing of funny is a lol forever:
Its roflmao increases; it will never
Pass into stfu;

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-04-21 03:07am

You failed to read the manual and disable restricted access to your router = you give implicit consent for anyone to access it.

You did this, and you in addition specifically enable file sharing access on networked computers = you are sharing these files with everyone in signal range.

On an open network, people can access anything-- if you don't want people to access it, don't configure it that way and broadcast it into the air. It's completely your responsibility to do this and extremely basic. This isn't anything like someone breaking onto someone else's property. You can do it from your own bedroom because their signal is filling it.

Might as well get pissed off if someone else besides yourself is able to hear your radio playing.

Redleader34 · Post by **Redleader34** » 2006-04-21 05:04am

The best analogy is this. I live near a major airport JFK. If I bought a radio that was capable of listing to the pilot communications, and I use the empty bandwidth to send my own communications would that be ok? Besides the FAA penalties and the Jail time, using bandwidth that I have not explicitly paid for is illegal, and immoral.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-04-21 06:08am

Redleader34 wrote:The best analogy is this. I live near a major airport JFK. If I bought a radio that was capable of listing to the pilot communications, and I use the empty bandwidth to send my own communications would that be ok? Besides the FAA penalties and the Jail time, using bandwidth that I have not explicitly paid for is illegal, and immoral.

2.4ghz is an unrestricted frequency, unlike that used for airplane communication. You can broadcast whatever you want on it as long as it's below a certain strength.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-04-21 07:37pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:I believe I already conceded that this was a logical extension of my argument.
And this is where your argument falls apart completely ETHICALY which proves your position has no ethical or moral grounding.
Indeed, I can't find a way around that one.

I still chafe at the idea of someone being prosecuted and sent to prison for committing an act which hasn't harmed anyone (this is really what fines are for) and I think the laws concerning the issue could be better defined, but it seems that accessing a wireless network's resources can be considered unethical.

Well done.

If you don't actualy utilize the connection and just connection, I seriously doubt anyone is going to care. Its when you utilize bandwidth or copy or alter files on the network that people care about. And people aren't so stupid to think that free internet exists everywhere.