StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Let me ask this. Is it steeling to sneak into a persons house, plug a cable into their router without them knowing and start to use their network?

If your answer is no, then there you can't say it's fine to to it using a wireless network as there is no difference in the slightest between the two actions, except the electrons are being directed in a slightly different way. If you answer yes, your clearly a God damned moron.

The idea that the network is unsecure thus its ok is insane.

If someone doesn't lock the door on their house, is it legal to go in and take stuff? If someone leaves their car running with the keys in it then steps out for a second and someone takes it, did they give permission for someone to take it? If a vending machines access door is left open, is it legal to take anything inside?

Clearly anyone with half a brain would say 'no' to any of that. The fact that people can then turn around and say accessing a privately owned network that isn't secure is perfectly legitiment is just absurd.

I blaim it on TV. We're all so used to TV signals floating through the air we don't pay for but can pull down for free that the less familar with computer technology don't see any difference.

Uranium, grow the fuck up. Your approaching this from a ME MOST IMPORTANT perspective and outright ignoring the realities of the situation.

What a stunning counter-argument, although I guess it's understandable seeing as Flagg already used up the "inappropriate analogy" and "eloquent moral outrage" cards you played last year.

Uranium once argued that unsecured wireless networks grant you explicit permission to alter any accesable files over the network and do whatever you want. Access was granted, therefore it is allowed.

Hey wow can you post any proof of that Alyeska? I'd love to see the quote which you're either grossly misinterpreting or taking out of context.

Altering another person's files could potentially destroy their data, which would be directly harmful to them, and as such could potentially be very unethical, and therefore while the networking equipment has granted permission, it would still be unethical due to the harm caused to the owner of the data which was altered.

It's also arguable that some people might find it extremely unnerving to find that a stranger had altered their data, and as such even a relatively harmless act (like leaving a text document with "LOL BUTTS" in it) could be construed as wrong, so I wouldn't even advocate for a hypothetical person's right to alter other people's data at whim.

But all this is largely irrelevant as, to my knowledge, I have never advocated that my argument for wireless access being okay means I can alter other people's data. But please, show us the quote that says otherwise.

And tell me, what's it like not being able to see shades of gray? Do you get little "thank you" cards from the guys that used to colorize films? Do you ever wonder what the appeal of film noir is? Are there no photographs of the Civil War in your world?

Chris OFarrell wrote:If someone doesn't lock the door on their house, is it legal to go in and take stuff? If someone leaves their car running with the keys in it then steps out for a second and someone takes it, did they give permission for someone to take it? If a vending machines access door is left open, is it legal to take anything inside?

Clearly anyone with half a brain would say 'no' to any of that. The fact that people can then turn around and say accessing a privately owned network that isn't secure is perfectly legitiment is just absurd.

Did you even put any thought into this post, or did you just start sputtering and typed as fast as you could, frustrated that the keyboard could not carry your moral outrage fast enough?

Do you even comprehend the concept of "theft"? If I steal something from you, I'm taking the value and utility it holds away from you such that you no longer have it and can no longer benefit from it.

If I connect to your wireless network, call up a list of connected computers, then leave, no harm's been done and your network is as valuable to you as it was before I arrived. I have not taken anything away from you. Hell, at that point I have not even infringed on your ISP, assuming that your wireless network even has an internet connection!

Is it utterly beyond your capability to consider the idea that intangible actions may in fact not be totally analogous to the physical world? Is your mind so small and closed that the only way you can frame hypothetical actions is within the parameters of your house and your car?

Is it so much to ask that you attempt to discuss the question of the ethics of connecting to someone else's wireless network without resorting to godawfully inadequate analogies which don't even accurately model the actions taking place?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:If someone doesn't lock the door on their house, is it legal to go in and take stuff? If someone leaves their car running with the keys in it then steps out for a second and someone takes it, did they give permission for someone to take it? If a vending machines access door is left open, is it legal to take anything inside?

Clearly anyone with half a brain would say 'no' to any of that. The fact that people can then turn around and say accessing a privately owned network that isn't secure is perfectly legitiment is just absurd.

Did you even put any thought into this post, or did you just start sputtering and typed as fast as you could, frustrated that the keyboard could not carry your moral outrage fast enough?

Do you even comprehend the concept of "theft"? If I steal something from you, I'm taking the value and utility it holds away from you such that you no longer have it and can no longer benefit from it.

If I connect to your wireless network, call up a list of connected computers, then leave, no harm's been done and your network is as valuable to you as it was before I arrived. I have not taken anything away from you.

The HELL you have. You've stolen bandwidth from my network, which is the meter by which I would pay REAL money for REAL things. I know a lot of people who have wireless networks but only very limited download limits per month. You go in and knock off a dozen megs and say 'oh no harm done', then they get a bill that says 'pay money, now'.

Even if they have huge plan which gives them gigs of downloads per month, you are still steeling computing time, wireless bandwidth, electricity, all real things that you don't own and have no right to touch either legaly or moraly.

Period.

So according to you, if I go into someones house, photocopy their books but leave the originals I'm not doing anything wrong? I havn't broken any laws or gotten something which I should have paid for? Or if I grab their CD's, burn copys using my own media, then return the CD's without asking?

Sorry, it's called theft.

Hell, at that point I have not even infringed on your ISP, assuming that your wireless network even has an internet connection!

Irrelevent. You have accessed their network which was not yours to access. And I dobut you simply accessed their network for the sake of accessing their network. You would be doing it to copy files or use their network as a gateway to the internet. Either way, thats theft as IT IS NOT YOUR FUCKING NETWORK AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO GET SO MUCH AS A BYTE FROM IT.

Is it utterly beyond your capability to consider the idea that intangible actions may in fact not be totally analogous to the physical world?

No, but its utterly beyond your capibility to see that taking what does not belong to you and you have no permission to take is legaly and moraly still theft.

Is your mind so small and closed that the only way you can frame hypothetical actions is within the parameters of your house and your car?

Not but because about a dozen people in this thread are having absoloutly no luck getting through your wall of ignorance, I thought I would try to bring it down to a rather basic level for you.

Clearly that failed.

Is it so much to ask that you attempt to discuss the question of the ethics of connecting to someone else's wireless network without resorting to godawfully inadequate analogies which don't even accurately model the actions taking place?

Ah yes because clearly steeling wireless bandwidth which someone pays for, without any kind of permission using the absurdly stupid excuse of 'its not secure therefore its public domain' is a rational posistion...oh wait...

Using someone else's wireless internet without permission is stealing. Like going up to a water faucet on the outside of a home or business and getting water is illegal. It is theft, plain and simple. The only part that would determine the level of theft would be the amount that the person stealing is using, if that could be determined.

Chris OFarrell wrote:The HELL you have. You've stolen bandwidth from my network, which is the meter by which I would pay REAL money for REAL things. I know a lot of people who have wireless networks but only very limited download limits per month. You go in and knock off a dozen megs and say 'oh no harm done', then they get a bill that says 'pay money, now'.

Even if they have huge plan which gives them gigs of downloads per month, you are still steeling computing time, wireless bandwidth, electricity, all real things that you don't own and have no right to touch either legaly or moraly.

Period.

The points to which you are responding to here were not discussing internet usage so your points here are irrelevant. I will happily concede that using someone else's metered internet connection is certainly a theft of service.

However, metered connections are fairly rare in most nations with high internet penetration, so in a great many places it would not be theft from you, although it could still be an infringement on the ISP (depending on the terms of service) and thus still wrong, as if everyone did it then the ISP could stand to lose out significantly.

So according to you, if I go into someones house, photocopy their books but leave the originals I'm not doing anything wrong? I havn't broken any laws or gotten something which I should have paid for? Or if I grab their CD's, burn copys using my own media, then return the CD's without asking?

Leaving aside the issue of trespassing, that would probably be considered copyright infringement; which is itself not theft although it can still be considered wrong.

Congratulations on throwing up another retarded analogy!

Irrelevent. You have accessed their network which was not yours to access. And I dobut you simply accessed their network for the sake of accessing their network. You would be doing it to copy files or use their network as a gateway to the internet. Either way, thats theft as IT IS NOT YOUR FUCKING NETWORK AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO GET SO MUCH AS A BYTE FROM IT.

On what basis do you make that assertion? This is the whole problem the last thread had; people came in and instead of discussing things in the context of computer networks, half of the replies consisted of knee-jerk moral outrage with barely any argument other than "IT'S STEALING AND IT'S WRONG". Did you even come in here to argue the issue, or did you just come in to yell at me?

That said, I've already conceded that using another person's wireless connection for internet access is probably unethical because it would probably constitute a violation of their ISP's terms of service. So you see, we've made progress in this thread.

(However, since I'm feeling snarky and you're apparently so easily outraged, I'll go ahead and say I wouldn't have a problem if it was known that the ISP for that wireless network were highly permissive to outside people connecting to their service.)

There are indeed people out there who will connect to a network, see what's available to them, and log off. These people have a peculiar trait to them known as "being curious".

As for files... no, I'm not convinced about copying files yet, because it's not inherently harmful and access was granted by the router, much like the web server analogy, which you have yet to address.

"but but but BUT WIRELESS NETWORKS AREN'T MEANT TO BE ACCESSED"

Actually, yes they are. Deploying a wireless network means that you want somebody to connect to your network and access it's resources without having to plug a wire in, just like deploying a web server means you want somebody to connect to that server and access it's resources.

Some people password protect part or all of their website so that only those people they specify as authorized can access it, and some people password protect their wireless network so that (shock!) only authorized people can access it.

If you're going to persist in your "network = house" analogy, then an unsecured router is like hiring a doorman who, when approached, will let anyone into your house.


So, I'm going to ask a pretty simple and straightforward question:

Why should web servers and wireless routers be treated differently?

This is the whole crux of my argument. They're both network devices. They're both meant to be accessed by someone, if not everyone. If you host the web server at your house (let's assume we aren't in your backwards land, k thx), sufficient use could degrade your internet experience. Why should I treat an open website as an invitation to explore, and an open router as the front door on some mythical house which I am never to enter?

Death from the Sea wrote:Like going up to a water faucet on the outside of a home or business and getting water is illegal.

Earlier in the thread, I wrote:This is distinctly disanalogous to physical public utilities like electricity or water, in which the rates are assessed by the amount of usage. Hence, where tapping into someone else's water or electric system could incur significant additional costs to that person, tapping into someone else's internet connection is unlikely to incur additional costs in the US.

Would you please read the thread before shooting from the hip?

Uraniun lets try this a different way to explain to you why the fuck it's not alright to access someones unsecured wireless network.

1. People have posted legislation that can be found on the internet easily that deals with accessing a private network, whether it be secure or not. You are not a "intended" authorised user, as such you are breaking that law and if caught the full weight of said law can be brought against you.

2. Put yourself in this position for a second. You have a wireless network which for some reason you haven't secured but you DO NOT intend for other people to access your network. Your playing WoW, or some other MMO, and suddenly start suffering from major lag and don't understand why and suffer a lag death, and loose a large chunk of xp and suffer additional penalties for dieing. Meanwhile you've got some asshole sat next door using your wireless connection to download music and takes up your bandwidth. But it's ok your access point let him access the internet so no problem right.
How would you feel if the above happened to you?

The answer: Pretty fucking pissed off!

EDIT: Put yourself in the "victims" shoes and tell me it's fucking ok to access an unsecured WiFi network without the bill payers permission.

Uranium, are you fucking retarded? Seriously, what part of this whole thing escapes you?

Web servers - Clearly INTENDED for access from users OUTSIDE the network by definition alone. They are already open because you HAVE to open certain ports (if you're behind a router, which typically they are) to even HOST a website. That alone states that YOU, the admin, are GRANTING PERMISSION for outside access.

Unsecured wireless networks are NOT intended for access from OUTSIDE their local network WITHOUT PERMISSION. Going by your brain-dead logic, its perfectly ok for me to waltz right into your house/apartment/whatever, look through whatever I please, raid your fridge for whatever I want, then walk out. Hey, your door was unlocked so its ok, right?

Unsecured wireless networks are NOT the little hotspots at your local Starbucks. By definition, you are BREAKING AND ENTERING. Whether security measures were implimented or not is irrelevent. You were NOT given permission to use their bandwith, thus you are COMMITING A CRIME! Whether you're plugging in an ethernet cable, or going in over the air waves, its still a CRIMINAL ACT! What part of this escapes your pea-sized brain? Before you even start typing up a reply, I suggest you do a google search for KEVIN MITNICK. He spent a fair ammount of time for accessing the NY Times network. All he did was peek around, and then later reported it to their administrator. He didn't use their internet pipe to look for anything, he just accessed their network WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION because he was curious. Still think its ok?

2. Put yourself in this position for a second. You have a wireless network which for some reason you haven't secured but you DO NOT intend for other people to access your network. Your playing WoW, or some other MMO, and suddenly start suffering from major lag and don't understand why and suffer a lag death, and loose a large chunk of xp and suffer additional penalties for dieing. Meanwhile you've got some asshole sat next door using your wireless connection to download music and takes up your bandwidth. But it's ok your access point let him access the internet so no problem right.
How would you feel if the above happened to you?

The answer: Pretty fucking pissed off!

EDIT: Put yourself in the "victims" shoes and tell me it's fucking ok to access an unsecured WiFi network without the bill payers permission.

I'd feel much more pissed at myself for having failed to secure the connection than at the person who'd used my connection.

Vertigo1 wrote:Web servers - Clearly INTENDED for access from users OUTSIDE the network by definition alone. They are already open because you HAVE to open certain ports (if you're behind a router, which typically they are) to even HOST a website. That alone states that YOU, the admin, are GRANTING PERMISSION for outside access.

Gee, I would think that the act of installing the webserver would be the act of opening the system for access.

Unsecured wireless networks are NOT intended for access from OUTSIDE their local network WITHOUT PERMISSION.

What exactly are you defining as the "local network"? Wireless networks are intended to be accessed from anywhere that an authorized client can achieve a signal. That's the whole point of a wireless network; to allow access without having to be physically tied to a certain location by a cord.

The router has granted my honest request for access. This should be enough. Why should I have to be concerned about their intentions? An improperly configured web server could be just as potentially insecure as an improperly configured wireless router.

Going by your brain-dead logic, its perfectly ok for me to waltz right into your house/apartment/whatever, look through whatever I please, raid your fridge for whatever I want, then walk out. Hey, your door was unlocked so its ok, right?

With logic like yours, you should be working for the RIAA.

If you take a banana from my fridge, I can never use that banana myself.

If you connect to my wireless network, browse the network, even copy files from my system, and leave, I can still use the network, the system, and the files.

There's a pretty clear difference between the two acts. But hey, black/white fallacies are awesome. It's either WRONG or it's RIGHT, no in between or degrees thereof, am i rite?

Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the issue that your analogy simply does not accurately model the circumstances of connecting to an open wireless network. When my computer sends the signal requesting to join your wireless network, your router will either allow or deny me access. This is more analogous to having a guard standing at your door rather than having a door standing open. An open wireless network is analogous to that guard letting anyone in who wants to.

This however is irrelevant as a wireless network is not a house, nor do I believe that connecting to a network is analogous to walking into somebody's house.

Can anyone here actually argue this issue without resorting to calling a wireless network a house?

blah blah criminal act blah blah

I believe I've already conceded that such activities are illegal, but I don't believe the legality of an act is relevant to the morality or ethics of an act.

Uraniun235 wrote:If you connect to my wireless network, browse the network, even copy files from my system, and leave, I can still use the network, the system, and the files.

OK lets go with this, you access my wireless network, browse it, look at my files, copy files etc thats fine by you right. Not in any legal sense no, acccessing the Internet you can get away with because you can get rid of the evidence that you accessed someone elses network, and unless they actually caught you doing it they have no proof. However accessing someones files on a network, even unsecured is a big no no, that is truely stealing, since whats to stop you from copying a file that could make or break a buisness deal and selling it to that persons competitor. That is the reason why laws were brought in in every Internet dominated country that prosecutes people that do such things.

Anyway back on topic, your statement about wireless accessabilty is perfectly right in that you can access a WiFi connection that is unsecured for the simple fact that the router gives you access. However this idea of anyones unsecured connection is fair game would only work under something that a friend of mine suggested called Community Broadband, where there are X amount of wireless routers in the area, and by paying a certain amount you get an access key to that connection, like a pay as you go mobile.
However this still does not change the fact that accessing a wireless network, even to go on the Internet, is still accessing a private network without permission, and if you read earlier posts in this thread you'd realise that if you get caught there are laws that can be brought against you for actually doing so.
The posts are:
me (Mr CorSec) on page one citing the UK's computer misuse act.
Naquitis again on page one citing the North Caralina law (one particular section)
irronically you quote the entire law itself for North Caralina

The whole idea of getting permission to access someones network, even for internet usage, is to physically ask the person that owns the router or access point on that network for permission, if that network is not locked down, not to let the unsecured router make the decision for it's owner.

Mr CorSec wrote:The whole idea of getting permission to access someones network, even for internet usage, is to physically ask the person that owns the router or access point on that network for permission, if that network is not locked down, not to let the unsecured router make the decision for it's owner.

Oh shit, right now I am BREAKING TEH LAW!!!1. Guess what? I'm accessing the net through work. I never asked permission of anyone.

But the router accepted my request for access.

It's an open network...

Everybody seems to be ignoring two things.

1) Not every network is intended for private use.
2) There's no way to tell if a network is intended for private-use only, especially if it hasn't been configured as such. The only way to find out is to try and access it and see if it lets you.


EDIT: And by the way, Mr Corsec, your friend's "Community Broadband" is by definition NOT an unsecured network, so saying the only way legitimite accessing of unsecured networking can work is in this model is erroneous on multiple levels.

I believe I've already conceded that such activities are illegal, but I don't believe the legality of an act is relevant to the morality or ethics of an act.

Ethically or morally, you seem to be assuming that the ignorance of the router owner in failing to secure his wireless configuration constitutes implicit permission to access his network.
In computer networking jargon, you're right. The system itself 'grants' you permission when you try to access it and lets you in.

Outside of that box however, using someone's ignorance in order to connect to their network and steal broadband* isn't what I'd call ethical or moral conduct any more than if I took advantage of someone's ignorance on computers and talked them into giving me $600 for a 1998-era Gateway P3 system 'complete w/17 inch monitor and printer'.





*Even if the bandwidth is 'unlimited', on cable systems heavy usage by one user can slow down access for every person on that node. So if your 'free' usage slows it down you are in effect stealing quality of service from every user on that node.

I've already conceded that using another person's internet connection via their wireless network is probably unethical, albeit more for reasons of the ISP being hurt by it than the user. The tussle right now is over whether merely connecting to that wireless network at all is ethical or not.

Outside of that box however, using someone's ignorance in order to connect to their network and steal broadband* isn't what I'd call ethical or moral conduct any more than if I took advantage of someone's ignorance on computers and talked them into giving me $600 for a 1998-era Gateway P3 system 'complete w/17 inch monitor and printer'.

That's a whole new can of worms which I am interested in. Thanks for the idea! (no, I don't mean I'm interested in going out and hustling people)

Mr Corsec wrote:The whole idea of getting permission to access someones network, even for internet usage, is to physically ask the person that owns the router or access point on that network for permission, if that network is not locked down, not to let the unsecured router make the decision for it's owner.

The whole idea behind computer networking and passwords and authorized users is that a human doesn't have to physically grant access to every person who wants in, and the potential definitely exists for someone to desire to let anyone connect to his network.

Uraniun235 wrote:Hey wow can you post any proof of that Alyeska? I'd love to see the quote which you're either grossly misinterpreting or taking out of context.

Altering another person's files could potentially destroy their data, which would be directly harmful to them, and as such could potentially be very unethical, and therefore while the networking equipment has granted permission, it would still be unethical due to the harm caused to the owner of the data which was altered.

It's also arguable that some people might find it extremely unnerving to find that a stranger had altered their data, and as such even a relatively harmless act (like leaving a text document with "LOL BUTTS" in it) could be construed as wrong, so I wouldn't even advocate for a hypothetical person's right to alter other people's data at whim.

But all this is largely irrelevant as, to my knowledge, I have never advocated that my argument for wireless access being okay means I can alter other people's data. But please, show us the quote that says otherwise.

And tell me, what's it like not being able to see shades of gray? Do you get little "thank you" cards from the guys that used to colorize films? Do you ever wonder what the appeal of film noir is? Are there no photographs of the Civil War in your world?

If you have implicit permission to access the network then you have implicit permission to do whatever you want. Don't play stupid Uranium. You don't get to cherry pick the issue.

Hm. I hadn't considered that ramification before.

Although, the consistent application of that principle would suggest that files which were open to modification or deletion would be fair game. In fact, ironically, based on my reasoning there's an even stronger implicit permission when it comes to file-shares, because open file-shares aren't configured by default; somebody has to go in and specifically set certain folders or files of their computer as shared.

I think I'll stick by that principle, partially because people shouldn't be setting up unsecured full-access file shares on their computers to begin with, just as with the wireless networks (Yeah, that's right, I'm blaming the victims again ).

Which is still absolute bullshit because reality is consent is not implied, it must be outright given. You do not own the airwaves and signals going through your home are not yours to connect to as you please.

The airwaves are a public resource which I do not need to own in order to utilize. I can use a radio receiver to listen to whatever signals I desire. This behavior becomes unethical only if I decrypt encrypted signals, as I have therefore violated the expectation of privacy.

Of which, I will note, there is none without encryption, as the signals are in fact passing through my home and my very body and to require that I dutifully ignore all but those I am explicitly authorized to recieve is quite absurd and draconian.

Encryption which, I will note, is supported by nearly if not every wireless networking device. And I believe I have already stated that defeating security systems - i.e. encryption - in order to gain access to a wireless network is unethical.

And I would like very much to hear an actual argument backing up your assertion that consent to access a wireless network must be explicitly given, because as you've no doubt figured out I'm really not impressed by displays of moral outrage.

If you want to be technical, even unsecured wireless is encrypted in a sense, and it requires you to deliberately - or negligently - point your wireless hardware at someone elses' network and crunch the numbers to present the user with resources. Sure, you can tune your radio to 2.4Ghz: without the hardware to read the packets, reassemble them, and interpret them, that information is static.

The *only* situation where this isn't a disgusting justification for theft and violation of privacy is in situations where other idiot users are unknowningly connecting to other wireless networks. This is very possible, with autoconnect, autonegotiate, and automounting of resources.

There's a difference between 'wireless network admins have ultimate responsibility for the security of that network' and 'I can do what I want'.

Are you seriously suggesting that any data transmitted over the airwaves which cannot be interpreted as meaningful sounds by the human ear is therefore encrypted? That's simply ludicrous, because that definition would mean that all computer data is encrypted to some degree or another, and so the word when applied to computing would become useless. There's also the issue that encryption involves a cipher key, of which there is none present in an unencrypted network.

Furthermore, considering that wireless networking devices are designed to communicate with each other via a common standard, the expectation of privacy present when using a real form of encryption (such as WEP or WPA) is not present in the absence of such systems, as it is expected that any other wireless device within range will be able to communicate with the wireless network.

Uraniun235 wrote:The airwaves are a public resource which I do not need to own in order to utilize. I can use a radio receiver to listen to whatever signals I desire. This behavior becomes unethical only if I decrypt encrypted signals, as I have therefore violated the expectation of privacy.

Of which, I will note, there is none without encryption, as the signals are in fact passing through my home and my very body and to require that I dutifully ignore all but those I am explicitly authorized to recieve is quite absurd and draconian.

Encryption which, I will note, is supported by nearly if not every wireless networking device. And I believe I have already stated that defeating security systems - i.e. encryption - in order to gain access to a wireless network is unethical.

And I would like very much to hear an actual argument backing up your assertion that consent to access a wireless network must be explicitly given, because as you've no doubt figured out I'm really not impressed by displays of moral outrage.

Its all in your argumentation. If an unencrypted network is implicit consent, then consent is automaticaly granted to do anything you want with connected devices. You were given permission by your very own reasoning and you can copy and delete information as you see fit.

Of course here is where your first argument gets sticky. This unencrypted data is free to listen to. However, you are now transmitting data into someone elses property directly to their device without permission. Its one thing to listen in on someones phonecall over an old unencrypted wireless headset. Its another to but into their phone call.

Its all in your argumentation. If an unencrypted network is implicit consent, then consent is automaticaly granted to do anything you want with connected devices. You were given permission by your very own reasoning and you can copy and delete information as you see fit.

I believe I already conceded that this was a logical extension of my argument.

Of course here is where your first argument gets sticky. This unencrypted data is free to listen to. However, you are now transmitting data into someone elses property directly to their device without permission. Its one thing to listen in on someones phonecall over an old unencrypted wireless headset. Its another to but into their phone call.

Transmitting into someone's property in and of itself should not be wrong because otherwise we're all pretty much just screwed; if you use a wireless device in a residential area it's extremely likely you're going to transmit data through someone else's airspace, and to expect no one to transmit any signals into your home without your explicit permission would be an undue and unnecessary burden on society.

Transmitting to their device without permission is acceptable because transmitting data to a network device without permission is not inherently unethical. I can send a ping to any IP address on the Internet I want with impunity (although sending enough pings could, in an extreme case, constitute a denial-of-service attack which would be unethical) and in fact the the idea that explicit permission is needed to contact any network device flies in the face of computer networking protocols, including the wireless networking protocol in which wireless devices actively broadcast to all wireless access points within range asking for identification.

Furthermore, the analogy of intercepting a telephone call is flawed in that connecting to a wireless network is not at all the same thing, because you're not intercepting the network communications between the other person's computer and their network, but rather your computer has broadcast a signal asking for nearby networks to identify themselves, the network may (or may not) respond with it's ID, at which point your computer can broadcast a signal prefaced with the network ID asking to join, at which point the network either grants or denies access. At no point are you listening in on someone else's data exchange, although it should be noted that doing so would be quite simple on an unencrypted network.

A much better analogy would be that you're using your own headset to connect to someone else's base-station. And, if you were to utilize their internet connection - which I've conceded would most likely be unethical - that would be analogous to using your headset to make a phone call through someone else's base-station. (I guess other network functions could be likened to, say, paging someone else's handset or something.)

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.

Transmitting into someone's property in and of itself should not be wrong because otherwise we're all pretty much just screwed; if you use a wireless device in a residential area it's extremely likely you're going to transmit data through someone else's airspace, and to expect no one to transmit any signals into your home without your explicit permission would be an undue and unnecessary burden on society.

Transmitting to their device without permission is acceptable because transmitting data to a network device without permission is not inherently unethical. I can send a ping to any IP address on the Internet I want with impunity (although sending enough pings could, in an extreme case, constitute a denial-of-service attack which would be unethical) and in fact the the idea that explicit permission is needed to contact any network device flies in the face of computer networking protocols, including the wireless networking protocol in which wireless devices actively broadcast to all wireless access points within range asking for identification.

Furthermore, the analogy of intercepting a telephone call is flawed in that connecting to a wireless network is not at all the same thing, because you're not intercepting the network communications between the other person's computer and their network, but rather your computer has broadcast a signal asking for nearby networks to identify themselves, the network may (or may not) respond with it's ID, at which point your computer can broadcast a signal prefaced with the network ID asking to join, at which point the network either grants or denies access. At no point are you listening in on someone else's data exchange, although it should be noted that doing so would be quite simple on an unencrypted network.

A much better analogy would be that you're using your own headset to connect to someone else's base-station. And, if you were to utilize their internet connection - which I've conceded would most likely be unethical - that would be analogous to using your headset to make a phone call through someone else's base-station. (I guess other network functions could be likened to, say, paging someone else's handset or something.)

If the logical continuation of your argument is unethical, then the very position itself is unethical because its all built on the same foundation.

First of all, I think Australians who have to pay for data transferred should take a chill pill and realize that this topic doesn't really deserve MURDEROUS THIEF! hyperbolic raving, as the rest of the world is not similarly crippled.

Here's a little dilemma - most D-Link routers (and maybe others), out of the box, create an unsecured wireless network called 'default'. John Q. Consumer has a laptop which he tells to connect to his 'default' home network every time without whining. He doesn't know how any of it works, it's just this box the guys from the ISP set up.

Now, John goes to a cafe and sits down on the patio. He opens his laptop, and hey presto, the computer connects to some other dumb guy's unsecured network. John doesn't notice this, but since he left Outlook open before, it automatically fetches his email for him. John is amazed, his computer works at the cafe! He doesn't actually have any idea how this happens, and being a technological nincompoop, he's never even wondered.

Is John actually being unethical by checking his email at the cafe?

And if you want to use analogies, I've got a real-life one for you.

I was walking in the countryside, and I was lost. I was severly hung over, and had been walking in the blazing sun for 4 hours. I thought I was going to pass out from dehydration. Then I see someone's cottage, there's no fence, and there's a well in the front yard, about 20 feet from the road. No one seemed to be home, so I walked up to the well, cranked the handle, and out came water.

Now, this didn't cost the owners anything, as no one charges them for ground water. I didn't break into their house, I didn't even open an unlocked gate or door. The well did cost the owner of the property a certain amount to put in, but me drinking from it cost him nothing at all. Yet legally, I was trespassing, and stealing, I'm sure.

Is that really unethical?

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.