Say Anything Blog

Rob, from a moral standpoint--to hell with the legal--you don’t see this as theft?  Shame on you.

Regards…

LTM: I think the key word here is “broadcast”.  When you do that, you lose any sense of possessing what is broadcast.
My opinion is that in the near future, advertising revenue will make it possible for the internet to be free to anyone with the necessary hardware.  The internet is the best advertising medium known to man, and it is only a matter of time.

robert, Your prediction is very interesting.  kinda like tv, I suppose? ..I never thought of that

The story didn’t state whether or not they had asked him to quit.  Assuming that they didn’t they’ll never get this charge to stick. 

I see it as the same as pulling off the road and using a gas stations bathroom without buying anything. 

Finally I think the law will settle that if an entity fails to protect their service it’s fair to use it.  It’s legal to walk in someone’s backyard until they put up a fence.

Yes, broadcast TV.  It just makes sense to me.  We might need a bit more market penetration, but I think it’s on the way.

Whistler: From the article:

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop.

This was clearly a repeat performance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s legal to walk in someone’s backyard until they put up a fence.

Depends on the state.  Some have strict definitions of trespassing.  A better analogy is that it is legal to look into someone’s backyard until they put up a privacy fence, at which point it becomes illegal to peep.

I didn’t catch that as it concerned law enforcement.

Rob, from a moral standpoint--to hell with the legal--you don’t see this as theft? Shame on you.

I’m not sure how immoral it is to use someone’s open wireless access point.  If we were talking about me taking someone’s wallet after I saw them drop it on the sidewalk that’d be one thing, but using an open wireless access point is about as much “stealing” as taking a box of tissues from a hotel room.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I see it as using a neighbors rake that he left out and returning it a few minutes later.

but using an open wireless access point is about as much “stealing” as taking a box of tissues from a hotel room.

Taking the tissues presumes someone paid for the room.  The ‘cost’ of guests taking items is factored into the room rate.  The coffee shop paid for the wireless access so as to provide it to their paying customers. 

Admit it, the guy’s a thief.

Regards…

I see it as using a neighbors rake that he left out and returning it a few minutes later.

Did you ask the neighbor’s permission?

Regards…

Did you ask the neighbor’s permission?

No, and I’m not going to be arrested for it either.  If they didn’t want to share they would set up their router to require a password.

The coffee shop paid for the wireless access so as to provide it to their paying customers.

And they have the option of restricting access to the customers.  Every router comes with that feature.

But hey, maybe I’m just biased because I do this sort of thing all the time.  If you think I’m immoral, so be it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t do it all of the time, ok once at the in-laws.

If you don’t protect it, it’s an invitation to use it.

I would compare it to

using the store’s opened-to-the-public restroom without actually buying any of their services

The point at which it becomes immoral when they asked him to stop.  After months of mooching and taking up a parking spot, they asked him to stop.  When he continues the behavior, he is acting immorally…

But as for simply mooching off of wireless, although I’ve never done it, I don’t think it is immoral.  It’d be like someone setting up a large-screen TV in the shop in plain view from the sidewalk and then claiming it’s stealing when some guy sits down on the sidewalk to watch through the windows… The signal is being broadcast into public space, it’s not immoral to use it.

I would compare it to

using the store’s opened-to-the-public restroom without actually buying any of their services

. (better than all of you anologies)

That is a rather stupid analogy, actually.  The guy isn’t going INTO the store, the store is broadcasting the signal OUTSIDE into public space.  and using the restroom costs the store something whereas this costs exactly $0

. (better than all of you anologies)

Trying to start an analogy war with me?  That’s like stripping down to your underwear and sticking your head in ice water.

Some of you are sounding suspiciously like the trolls that visit.  I’m not talking about the letter of the law, or about whether you ‘can’ be arrested.  I’m talking about what’s right, and you know it.  Parse it any way you wish, the guy’s a thief…

Regards…

Morally until you know that they don’t wish to share it with you, it’s not illegal (shouldn’t be anyway) or immoral.

LTM, I guess our morals are different then.  I don’t have a problem using the bathroom at gas stations where I’ve purchased nothing and I don’t have a problem using an open wireless connection that doesn’t cost the owner a thing.

Call me a thief, I guess.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, suppose there was a sign in the parking lot; “Internet Access is for our paying customers”.

Would you use it even if you could get away with it?

Immoral at fist, but not illegal.  If the coffee shop made no attempt to block access to their wireless connection (password protected, sign in window, etc), then shame on them.  Once this individual was asked to stop it became illegal because they made an effort to stop him.  Shame on the WAN thief.

How is it immoral at first.  The coffee shop owner may not care if someone uses the WAN as long as it doesn’t interfere.  He may figure that sooner or later that this guy is going to start buying Latte’s.

FAQ: Wi-Fi mooching and the law

If the man was parking behind the coffee shop and using the WAN with no intention of patronizing the shop then I would categorize his actions as morally questionable (immoral may be too strong).  I’m guessing the coffee shop offered the WAN free of charge as a benefit for customers not as a public service.

A weak analogy would be going into a convenience store every day and taking a penny from the take/give a penny jar without ever patronizing the store or giving a penny.  I say weak analogy because that would cause no harm to the store.  In this case the man is using wireless bandwidth - a finite commodity.  As he uses bandwidth there is less available for the customers and workers in the store whom the WAN exists to serve.

… I don’t have a problem using an open wireless connection that doesn’t cost the owner a thing.

Call me a thief, I guess.

You are a thief, as is this guy.  Logically the the wireless access is a *service*, use of the service when informed that you are not authorized to use the service is theft.

The claim that the wireless costs the owner nothing would be irrelevant even if it were not completely false.
The upload and download bandwith cost money and the wireless access points which cost money to purchase and maintain and can only support a limited bandwidth.  All of this bandwidth is being used to the possible degredation of service to authorized users.

I have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, nor how the letter of the law is written.  But once he was informed that he was not authorized to use the wireless access it morally became theft.

Rob, please stop, what else are we going to find out about you, living in sin, mooching off others’ paid for wireless? The potential criminal violations are piling up my friend. /sarcasm/

The upload and download bandwith cost money and the wireless access points which cost money to purchase and maintain and can only support a limited bandwidth. All of this bandwidth is being used to the possible degredation of service to authorized users.

As far as we know this guy wasn’t affecting response times for other “invited” users.  Of course if it was, they surely would have set up security to prevent “uninvited” users.

I’m doing this right now!

Choice Hotels without passwords are awsome.

Isn’t this the blog group who staunchly condemns ‘moral relativity’?

Precise analogies between old and new technologies can be difficult to create.  My husband reads old legal cases. Especially ones where judges try to adapt old law to new technology.  It usually takes several tries to get it right.  Maybe the gas station analogy would be using the water and squeegee without buying gas. OR, standing outside the bar and watching the pay-for-view event through the clear window.  I don’t think this is moral relativism. It is determining what is right and what is wrong…

Moral relativism:

the belief that right and wrong (ethics) are arbitrary and transitory, determined by the individual or the culture.
http://www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/ - Definition in context

In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references. Moral relativism also suggests that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.

*********

Describes the thread pretty well to me.

Last def. was from Wikipedia.

To repeat, it is not always easy to determine how an absolute standard, example “thou shall not steal”, applies in a fact situation that is different or new.  To attempt to decide whether a standard applies to a particular situation is not moral relativism.  It might be a moral struggle, but it is not relativism.

As stated earlier, WiFI is on Public Broadcast bands.

Once the signal hits the air, it’s in the public domain.

As long as he wasn’t hijacking it to send spam or hack, he’s done nothing wrong.

What missing is the expectation that the coffee shop is giving out this service to the public or just to paying customers.  I’m sure there are many businesses that wouldn’t care as long as it didn’t affect response times.

According to the FCC, this is not stealing. The regulations state that anyone (personal or business) that does not encrypt their wireless network or who only use the default password that came on their router are in effect offering their network for others to use.

Legal, yes. Moral, depends.

I looked this up a couple of wars ago when I was wardriving a lot. I still leech a connection from time to time when like Rob I’m out of town or in need of a net fix bad.

Rob, as you know, I run an independent hotel in Jamestown. If you’re ever in the area, you can park in our lot and use the wireless, all you want. In fact, you can even come inside and sit on the comfortable couch in the lobby, grab a free cup of coffee and a newspaper, if you’d like.

Actually, you can bring your suit and take a dip in the pool.

The fact is, this is not a question of integrity, ethics, or morals. It’s a preference of the business owner. If we wanted to keep people out or make them pay for these things, we’d keep out doors locked and not invite the public inside. We would also lock down our wireless access and require passwords to use it. We “made the decision” not to do this, though.

Everybody who supplies wireless access has the same decision or choice.