The Ethics of Freeloading Broadband

we have a secured wi-fi, which we use on our laptops, or other devices such as roku for Netflix (stream and watching movies on our TV)

there are times when my computer or the roku and latches unto an unsecured access point. I usually notice it right away...slower speed. I'll ping and see it, and change.

Watching a movie it may not happen where the streaming is not interrupted. And that would happen if we have to reboot. took a while for my girlfriend to pick up on this.

As easy as it is to secure your wi-fi and you leave it unsecured, you'd be foolish not to expect it. Doesn't make it right but be reasonably...intelligent. Its no different than leaving a fin ($5.00) out on your sidewalk.

I agree and believe that if a wi-fi is left unsecured, it is to provide a public service for anyone to use.

I'd use it and not feel guilty about it. That said, I only do a little web surfing, email and CR4.........very little bandwidth, I don't think anyone would notice me. If I got on, and the connection was extremely slow, I would know that I was screwing up someone else's connection, and would sign off until they were done.

I guess I would be a thief with ethics.

If it was a McDonald's or Starbucks or something, and I was within range, I wouldn't think twice about it.

I'd use it and not feel guilty about it. That said, I only do a little web surfing, email and CR4.........very little bandwidth, I don't think anyone would notice me.

Problem is there are probably 10 more like you using the piggy backing the same wi-fi saying the same thing then its no long little and the bandwidth is strained

as far as:

If it was a McDonald's or Starbucks or something, and I was within range, I wouldn't think twice about it.

A few years ago a person drove up to Starbucks with his car and used their wi-fi out of his car and was promptly reported. Starbucks case, its for their customers and their customers only. If only he bought a Frappuccino. I think I read it here on CR4.

It was strictly hypothetical on my part. Where I live now is probably where I'll die, and I'll never be within range of someone else's wifi. I pay for internet now, (too much), and always will.

For individuals that have wifi set up, it's easy enough to make it a secure connection, if they don't bother securing it, they shouldn't be surprised when they're connection is slow.

It's kind of like always leaving the doors of your car unlocked and the keys in the ignition, eventually someone's going to steal it. While stealing is wrong, the owner of the car would be largely responsible for the loss, and shouldn't be surprised when it turns up missing.

Will Starbucks or McDonalds not fall under the same catagory if you consider unsecured wi-fi un-ethical?

It is a slightly different situation, but I have a coworker who lives in an apartment and has a wonderful internet arrangement.

When he first moved in, he took notice of a boat load of secure wi-fi connections and thought it to be wasteful. So he got to know his neighbors and they kind reached an informal agreement to share the connection and costs. He set up a high bandwidth subscription with the ISP at a higher cost and his neighbors chip in to help pay for it. He says he usually ends up only having to pay about $10-20/month out of pocket, but some months when there are enough neighbor "donations" to cover it fully.

Perhaps if we instituted a social policy of donating a little to the private unsecured networks that we jump on, then we would end up with a very large public network and not have an ethical issue at all!

Just being the devil's advocate here.

But wouldn't that make them all guilty of stealing from the ISP?

Not much different than one person getting cable TV and allowing his neighbors to tap in, for a fee, to lower his bill.

I do think that's a good idea by the way.

interesting....they are paying for the service, and with cities a while ago that tried to have free city wide internet, and found it not to be fiscally viable, this actually sounds like a good idea to form cooperatives

It is a good idea.......multiple apartments paying for and sharing one account. I think the ISP would probably look at it differently though. Much like the cable company would, if it was cable.

I see your point. I think cable tv case has a subtle difference though. My buddy is paying for a certain amount of bandwidth in contrast to cable tv that you're paying for service for the household. IMO it shouldn't make one lick of difference if the person using it (and paying for it mind you) is sitting 10 ft from the router or 50 ft from it at the pool or in the next apartment. His only limitation from the ISP's perspective is the transfer speed. If enough people jump on and the connection maxes out, and he's getting what he's paying for (i.e. there is no theft of service, it's only fully using the service he's paying for).

I do imagine the ISP's legal team could put forth a compelling argument why this isn't correct though.

Personally, I think most, if not all, ISP's, and cable companies for that matter, are a rip-off. If anyone can figure out a way to shave some money off the bill, or squeeze a little extra from them, I say go for it.

If his connection stays maxed out though for extended periods of time, and tends to run way higher than the average account, he shouldn't be surprised if the ISP starts asking questions.

I've known people that have set up home internet connections, and had the ISP tell them that based on email volume and bandwidth use, (even though it's unlimited internet), that they need to switch to a more expensive option, like business or whatever, or get cut off. The ISP's already know about these little tricks that people use......................they want everyone paying, period.

It's a little off topic, but I talked to a person for one of the major ISPs here in AR. (Note we have regulated utilities.) She said they went for a rate CUT and was denied because it would have given them an "unfair market advantage".

I think you're right in that if the ISP's didn't like it, then they'd simply change up the rules to force everyone to pay. Until then I say we go for the coop internet! Increase to a more expensive option? My friend opted for it and it is still cost effective! From a legal perspective I think one could argue the coop type of set up has little difference from what Starbucks, McDonald's, or whoever has.

I happen to live in a community where the Government has actually set up free hot spots in various parts of the city. When one connects over unsecured WiFi here, there is really no way of knowing if it is one of the government-sponsored hot spots or some private, insecure system. Then there are businesses (hotels mostly) that have open WiFi access, and some don't seem to mind if you just wander in off the street and start surfing...On the other hand, if the owner of the service (say your neighbor) objects to you piggy backing on her service, then it is definitely against the law. Thing is, one can not always tell the difference between public and private networks...

So, is it stealing if the entity sponsoring it has no objection?

Since it is virtually impossible to open any page on the Web with having advertisements either staring back at or or dancing around, I'd be perfectly happy using a free wi-fi hook up just like I do at the library, local breakfast place and anywhere else I happen to run into one.

I am old enough to remember the first color tv and still remember listening to radio shows like 'The Lone Ranger' and 'Amos & Andy' when I was home sick in grade school. It was all free then...

If they don't want people using their bandwidth their networks should be secured. Unsecured networks are the same as an item on the sidewalk with a 'free' sign on it. Starbuck's (etc) can give their password out to paying customers upon request.

Under your rules, if you leave your home unlocked I can go in and live there as long as I want. Or I can just take your stuff to my house. After all, since you didn't lock the door everything in your home, and your home itself, is public property. Acutally I shouldn't even be calling it "your" home; but rather our home since it belongs to everyone.

Secured or unsecured, be it a dwelling, other personal property or a service that someone is paying for, theft is theft.

BTW, I do secure my wireless network so slugs like yourself cannot take advantage of my hard work.

The fact that one can secure a network but chooses not to secure that network pretty much says to anyone that comes across it that it is free to use.

Same as locks on your doors but with the difference being that someone stealing air time is just stealing air time, not your Rolex.

If someone broke their security password and logged on then that would be criminal theft.

But then I live in a neighborhood where nobody locks their doors. By the way, not only do I not lock my doors, they are even standing open 24/7 (with the screen door closed) unless the temp gets below 60F. Beware of Doggies tho...

I do however have a password on my wireless DSL but just because it's slow enough as it is...

no, his house is not a public walk. If you enter his house under those terms, you will be rightfull shot........ If you have any common sense....use it.

There was a recent case that made the news here in Arkansas that pertains. The police obtained a search warrant (for child porn), they quickly realized it was not the address originally specified, but the next door neighbor who was "freeloading". In the end they arrested the appropriate person. The unsecured router's owner while having the pleasure of a partially executed police search was not prosecuted.

I'm sure the laws vary state to state here in the US, but here in Arkansas they (law enforcement) don't appear to take action against those not committing the crime.

I used to live in New York... there I can easily see exactly the opposite and would have to agree with your point about securing the system. Of course, in that situation might it be worse to have someone hack it? I'm just thinking out loud here... If the authorities pick up on illegal activity and the system is secured, then it would seem more likely (in their eyes) that the owner is the perp.

Your last point is true. If you are clearly "in control" of the link, then what is done with the link would also, clearly, be "in your ballpark". OTOH, it is also clear that if you've adequately secured it (and if not, it shouldn't be too hard to show that a] you tried, and b] while your intent was good, your skills weren't enough) you'll still be OK. Given how easy rudimentary security is, AND how rudimentary standard security is, (i.e., hackers of much skill not only can, but, given reason, WILL crack standard home security measures, or at least bypass them, "piggybacking" on a wireless link without even having to crack it) hackers who can do that will be evident to qualified law enforcement types, and thus will still tend to exonerate the link owner who won't appear as technically skilled. I hope that makes sense.

My fear would be the DA or other "political law enforcer" who cares less about the rights of the innocent than about the political name he or she can make as a "fearsome, law and order type" (think about the Georgia DA who prosecuted a clearly failing case against the Lacrosse team [who may or may not have dirty laundry, but whose case put the DA in so much hot water, and so needlessly branded the individuals concerned, that we will NEVER know, now], and went to such great lengths to secure his own reputation, that he, himself, having ruined several other reputations, now faces prison time for falsifying or suppressing evidence). Would HE have included the innocent link owner in an "appropriate" case? I think so. And he is what I would be MORE worried about, and thus I, personally, would lean to protecting my link against those who do wrong, and being more inclined to trust the majority of law-enforcement officers, rather than the politically driven decision makers who might decide to include me in their (rather shaky, on this point) case, on the grounds that since the intruder was able to misuse a link I had clearly TRIED to secure, I must somehow be culpable in the miscreant's crime.

I don't think my securing the link offers much support to the criminal. Not near as much support as that same action offers me, personally.

But it IS a consideration, and a tradeoff decision each had to make personally.

"qualified law enforcement types" is a questionable concept, when it comes to electronic communications...

Over the years, I have noticed a subtle switch in law enforcement strategy within the United States. Traditionally, the law has been based on the Engliish common law concept dating from, I believe, the Magna Carta, that one is innocent until proven guilty, putting the onus on the government to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The shift has been toward a more Roman law model, where one, once accused, is assumed guilty unless one can prove one's own innocence. The most blatant example of this shift is, of course, the RICO law, which allows the government to sequester all of your possessions until you have demonstrated your innocence.

With this drift in legal rights continuing, it is very easy to see that the legal authorities could find you culpable if your unsecured wireless link were to be used for nefarious or illegal purposes by unknown perpetrators, without your knowledge. And, since the Law is motivated to punish someone- anyone- when a crime has been committed, you will be the low-hanging fruit.

There is a new legal concept also, that has come up in the Madoff Ponzi scheme legal battles- you can be found culpable if you "should have known", without the government (or vulture lawyers) needing to prove that you actually "knew" an activity was occurring...

Scary stuff, this...

I'll no doubt rile a few with this, but so be it.

THIS is one of the strongest arguments around for the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep AND BEAR Arms!

When government has to fear its masters, it is harder for it to forget that its function is to serve, not command. Or torment!

Scary times, indeed. But I have never believed we were closer to needing to force our government back into the box. And that stands regardless of which party or philosophy you may subscribe to.

I used to sign myself a Republic. Now, I find myself much more on the side of the Conservative Libertarian. Of course, that is not a recognized party, but if the Tea Party stands for nothing else, it stands for "Don't tread on me. OR Him, or Her. Back off, Jack!!"

And I think it is past time our government heard that we are upset enough to snarl, occasionally. It appears that for many on our Capital Hill, only a snarl, with an implied bite, is worthy of notice. And even then, it has to be the snarl of many throats as one.

But it IS time!

I hope it does rile a few.... enough to maybe open their eyes a bit. There are lots of people with you on this!!

Excellent point... and makes the case against freeloaders and ethics. Unfortunately, there are those that take advantage of "free"... and the "ethical" among us need to ensure security.

Personally speaking, if I find an unsecure network in my neighborhood, I offer to help them secure it. I know my neighbors... but i don't necessarily TRUST the

Good point, that last. There are quite a few people who call me their friend, but I don't necessarily feel that same way about them. I treat them as warmly and well as I am able, and will do all I can to help them, but "FRIENDS" are people I can trust, particularly to be consistent in their treatment of me, and of my family.

I find quite often that people don't see the world through the same cynical lenses with which I see them. So I offer all I can publicly without compromising my or my family's security, and allow those who call me friend, but don't seem to really understand the term as I do, to go on believing me their friend. OTOH, I hold myself to a high standard. I suspect, but don't care to look closely enough to verify, that I hold myself to a higher standard than a lot of people do, where honesty, morality, and loyalty, are concerned. So be it. "Friend"ship CAN be unilateral.

And I offer to help my neighbors secure their nets, also.

But if they don't wish to do so, I feel no remorse about "free-loading" on their WFi.

I think it's wrong, but now day's the internet it a drug and we're all hooked. When on vacation and I find our rental has no internet, I'll scope out neighboring Wi-Fi connections.

This could be less of an issue when wireless providers can legitimately hit the speeds promised.

You could always verify with the property owner/manager in advance that wi-fi is available and if not find somewhere else to stay. That way you wouldn't have to scope out neighboring connections. The internet may be a drug, but we are not all hooked.

You might not be hooked but all those contributing to Facebook being the #1 most visited site of 2010 certainly are.

I think an additional ethical question is raised here, namely is it ethical to operate an unsecured network if you do not intend it to be shared? The problem is that we are so rapidly becoming a society which depends not only on the rapid exchange of information, but also on the security of that exchange. There are new methods of discourse evolving which require new ethical considerations. It is difficult to imagine anyone in this age owning a wi-fi connection who is not aware at least that it is possible to secure that connection. If, as is probably often the case, that person has no knowledge of the steps necessary to secure their system, then I believe it is incumbent upon them to seek the expertise necessary and have the simple task done, if for a modest fee, then so be it. Like it or not, we are stewards of not only this world, but of the one we will leave to our children. If we don't attend to the tasks necessary to an ordered, healthy, prosperous society, then we are contributing to its demise.

Let's do some quick math to put things in perspective...

Let's assume that one uses their home internet for 4 hours a day and let's say said person uses an average of 20% of the bandwidth during that time. So for each day we could say this person uses 0.8 effective full capacity-hours per 24 hours... or 3.3% of what they pay for each day or month. (Remember you're paying for 100% bandwidth for 24 hours each day)

Now, let's change up the terms. Let's say this is food. So in food equivalent, this person is ordering and paying for 100 value meals each day and only eating 3 of them.

So... is it unethical for a hungry someone to come along and eat one of the 97 meals that have been thrown away? We should make them go down to the local fast food joint and buy their own right? Never mind the pile of food is sitting at the curb with the other trash...

Math problems can be solved logically. Ethics problems are a moral issue.

So, if I'm walking down the sidewalk in my neighborhood after dark, and I SEE by the light of my neighbor's porch light (HE is paying for the light, so HE can see outside, and so HE can have a little better security in front of HIS house), I'm STEALING light?

Who knew?

OHHH, bad Lama. Now I have guilt!!

Please tell me your not serious...??!! My hope for humanity is already low enough without thinking a man of your obvious intellect ACTUALLY believes that statement.

NOPE. NEVER. But then again, when someone broadcasts AM radio, or FM, but not on the secured sidebands, and I listen, I don't feel I stole anything when I turn off the advertisements.

I see MY WIFI (802.11N Mesh, with range extenders) the same way. If I don't secure it, I don't intend it to be secured, or NOT shared. If, on the other hand, I secure it, and find that someone, somehow, hacked it, and is using it then, I would definitely consider that theft. That's why I won't even attempt to hack a secured net, either.

Could you guys clarify something for me? It'll help put this in perspective for me, and it's something I've wondered about.

Say it's an unsecured network, either Starbucks, or a personal one. Someone alluded to the answer earlier, but I want to know for sure.

Does every person on that network share an IP address while online, or does each laptop/computer have it's own unique signature?

Their server acts as both a firewall, and a DHCP (a protocol that allows a server to reuse, and assign, a "pool" of dynamically managed IP addresses) behind the firewall. Hence the outside world, and THEIR ISP, sees the firewall as one IP, while their server sees everything "behind" itself (their customers, any freeloaders, internet enabled devices in their store, and deliberately "behind" their firewall, as opposed to those with their own unique IP addresses, sitting "adjacent" to their server) as multiple IP addresses.

Someone tell me how to post a diagram here, and what format to save it in, and I'll see if I can't diagram this.

But the short answer is that the customer has a unique IP only to the firewall. Everything inside the store's "DMZ" (what we call the controlled area protected by the firewall and other security devices) appears to the outside world as one IP address, which is the firewall/server's IP address.

Thanks, I get it. Sort of like this. So post#20, had a valid point concerning potential illegal activity, (kiddie porn, etc), over an unsecured personal network...........it would come straight back to the account holder, regardless of who it actually was. That alone would deter me from allowing others to piggyback on my account.

Yep. Thanks. Saved me trying to do my lousy art. You got it. And you're right about the reasons for securing it. As far as someone piggybacking, I couldn't care less, as long as I KNEW he/she wasn't going to cause me a legal or moral issue. So I let my houseguests (after all, I know them, or they wouldn't be in my house) use it without worrying about it. But I secure it from outside access for certain.

Absolutely! The unsecured network in an apartment complex is sounding like a worse and worse idea, regardless of the money saved. It could lead to some real problems for the guy with the account.

exactly... this happened to my father actually.

He didn't want to bother with security (too difficult to set up... blah blah) even against my terse insistance. He lives in a real nice suburban neighborhood, and his neighbors kid jumped on his wi-fi network (auto-connected according to testimony) and setup a music fileshare site.

After several months the music industry came after my father, and the rest wasn't pretty.

Ethically, he was culpable for not securing it... but I don't believe it is proper to accuse the victim for the crime. Just because you CAN, don't mean you should.

I believe (sooner or later) because of these types of crimes, ANY free "public access) wifi will be censored, leading us down another wormhole.

Chaoticintellect may want to shoot a link to this thread to his coworker.

If I go onto my neighbors properth and BREATHE his air MUST I PAY him?

If his tree GROWS onto MY property do I have a legal right to cut it OFF?

Last I checked, air and trees were not PAID for services from an ISP, subjected to legal, and user restrictions.

Pretty weak arguement, so I can see why you posted as a Guest. This was a question on ETHICS dude. So, ethically, if your neighbor were generating air, and you needed it to breathe... then YES, you should pay him. Else, you die. ALSO, technically speaking, where I'm from... if you trespass on my property I could shoot you, THEN charge you for the air to resucitate you if I choose too.

SECURITY..!!! Now where is that air shut-off valve..!!

If you are generating air, and it floats into my yard and I can breathe it without impact on your own use of the air, I have no obligation to pay.

Whether or not I was there to breathe the excess air, you would still be paying the same and receiving the same benefit.

If somehow your generator had to work harder, or you received less of a benefit, then there might be an obligation on my part.

A donation to your "generator fund" in recognition that I am getting a benefit would be nice of me to offer, but certainly not an obligation.

(Edited late thought: If I repaint my house and landscape my yard, are my neighbors going to chip in because neighborhood housing prices went up because of it?)

Have we lost site of the OP... ETHICS...??

Freeloading and Ethics does not equate... So:

IF your child is dumb, is it ethical for your son to bully the smart kid to do his homework..?

IF you are too lazy to fish, am I ethically obligated to give you MY hard earned fish..??

IF your spouse comes over to my house to have sex with me, is it ethical for me to take care of business..???

IF you have some extra money in your savings account, is it ethical for me to relieve you of it... since you aren't using it..??

Do you REALLY want to continue this very LAME arguement...?? Grow up and learn to fish and stop leeching... or at least stop supporting the ideology of freeloading. It's EVERYTHING that is wrong in society today.... entitlements..!!

I was only commenting on the "excess generated air" scenario. I'm not the original poster.

But understanding how your "ethical" questions is anything like that scenario is too difficult for me.

Bottom line... it's my air... I am paying for its generation, and it's not your call whether I need it or not. To do so would not be ethical.

So as your excess air blows into my yard, you'll be yelling over your fence:

"I'm paying for that air that's going over there, so you better not be breathing it!"

For me, the true root of this discussion is rather simple.

This weekend I was over at a friend's place for the big game. His three year old daughter had a package of M&Ms. She opened the package and proceeded to walk around the room offering up her treats to those around her. There was no prompting or such. She could have easily consumed the whole package, but she has been taught a lesson... sharing. She knows simply that she likes it and wants others to enjoy it at well.

I think most of us learned this lesson long ago back in the days before our ability to make decisions have been clouded by greed, rights of possession, ethics, morals, or logic. I was taught early on to give. Sharing is the basis of philanthropy and the heart of a fulfilling life.

Think back to the last time you went through a toll booth and had to pay nothing because the person in front of you covered it... or the last time a car mechanic diagnosed and fixed a problem without wanting payment... or the last time that three year old held out her hand offering up her M&Ms... it's a wonderful feeling. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, I hope you find these things at some point. For those of you who still wish to argue ownership, possession, freeloading, greed, or theft... no matter how compelling of an argument you make, there are those of us who remember what we were taught early on and are going to offer up our M&Ms even if you hoard yours.

Good points... no question.

but just to be clear... MY point in your post is this:

SHE offered... you did not make the assumption that she was OBLIGATED to share, hence you would have taken the M&M's from her. Furthermore, there are those... after offered the kind jesture, would sue her if they choked on it..!!

It would not have been ethical of you to take her M&M's because you believe she has more than she needs... or if she set the bag down in front of you.

You're absolutely correct that she offered the M&M's when I took them... I definitely couldn't have taken unless the intent was to share. So how do we know the intent of the unsecured network?

There are unsecured systems in which the owner wants total control over its use (perfectly fine). There are also unsecured systems that exist with the intent for anyone to use it. In which case, there is nothing wrong with using said connection (barring some fine print in the ISP service agreement, which is of no consequence to the passerby using it). As the passerby who simply flips a laptop open, if the connection is secure, then the discussion ends. If it is unsecure, then there is a very limited way to distinguish between the two types (intended to be shared or not).

I've seen unsecure connections with names like "Private" or "OPEN", in which case the intent is clear enough for me. If the connection is named "linksys", well... now we have to make an assumption. Given the ease of either setting it up as a secure connection or to name it, I think it is reasonable to assume the intent is to share.

yep... see my post #20. No arguement there... except for the ethics of the freeloader.

Personally, I wouldn't do it... but if I had nefarious reasons, all bets are off..!!