Fezmid Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Ignorance of a law is not a valid defense. As to Fez, several people have already been taken to court on the stealing of wireless. I know several high profile cases happened in Florida, california and I believe Ohio in the last couple years. Links? I'd like to see the details and whether it was settled out of court or not.
GG Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Did you ever stop to think that maybe the people who are using other people's unprotected wireless networks without their permission are just ignorant? Maybe someone should explain to them how things work. But until that happens, their ignorance can be forgiven. Didn't think about that, did you...? Creating a double negative doesn't resolve the dilemma. In the case of a neighbor who keeps his wifi unwittingly unprotected and the other neighbor who unwittingly uses that wifi, you can argue that both are ignorant and we shouldn't be bothered with them. But, in responding directly to the OP, where the user openly knows that he's pilfering an unprotected signal, along with most of the supportive responses, where the indication is obvious that someone is taking advantage of an unwitting participant, the ethical answer is clear.
Fezmid Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 But, in responding directly to the OP, where the user openly knows that he's pilfering an unprotected signal, along with most of the supportive responses, where the indication is obvious that someone is taking advantage of an unwitting participant, the ethical answer is clear. How do you know the neighbor isn't leaving his WiFi connection open on purpose?
GG Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 How do you know the neighbor isn't leaving his WiFi connection open on purpose? Keep twisting your argument to suit your case. How do you know that the Bills love for you to copy games and sell DVDs? ps - if the neighbor is leaving the connection open on purpose for the neighborhood to share, then I'm guessing he's violating the ToS of his ISP.
Fezmid Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 ps - if the neighbor is leaving the connection open on purpose for the neighborhood to share, then I'm guessing he's violating the ToS of his ISP. Then that'd be his problem, not mine. You just can't admit that it's not a black and white issue, can you?
VABills Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Keep twisting your argument to suit your case. How do you know that the Bills love for you to copy games and sell DVDs? ps - if the neighbor is leaving the connection open on purpose for the neighborhood to share, then I'm guessing he's violating the ToS of his ISP. By using that arguement, let's go back to the hose analogy. If a neighbor leaves it out and lets his friend/etc... use it one one side does that magically give his beighbor on the other side these mystical rights as well.
IDBillzFan Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 But, in responding directly to the OP, where the user openly knows that he's pilfering an unprotected signal, along with most of the supportive responses, where the indication is obvious that someone is taking advantage of an unwitting participant, the ethical answer is clear. I agree. What I have a hard time understanding is how people can, on one hand, be smart enough to need wireless in their house, and yet on the other hand also be too ignorant to understand the need for a password. Alternately, I've never had internet -- wireless or otherwise -- set up at my house where I was subjected to additional charges based on how much bandwidth I use. This includes the service I've had from AT&T DSL, Time Warner cable, and now AT&T's Uverse. I've just paid a flat fee to do as much as I want for as long as I want. So this begs the question; are there many service providers who charge based on use?
VABills Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Links? I'd like to see the details and whether it was settled out of court or not. most arrested are convicted. http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/can-access...nd-you-in-jail/
GG Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Then that'd be his problem, not mine. You just can't admit that it's not a black and white issue, can you? Actually, the issue is black and white. You look at each situation and apply your moral code to it.
VABills Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I agree. What I have a hard time understanding is how people can, on one hand, be smart enough to need wireless in their house, and yet on the other hand also be too ignorant to understand the need for a password. Alternately, I've never had internet -- wireless or otherwise -- set up at my house where I was subjected to additional charges based on how much bandwidth I use. This includes the service I've had from AT&T DSL, Time Warner cable, and now AT&T's Uverse. I've just paid a flat fee to do as much as I want for as long as I want. So this begs the question; are there many service providers who charge based on use? Some do. Comcast will cut you off after you go over a certain amount. A lot of businesses pay by usage.
GG Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 So this begs the question; are there many service providers who charge based on use? Not.... yet....
Fan in San Diego Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 It takes literally one minute to create a secure network. If somebody leaves themself with an unsecure connection, it means one of two things. 1) They're stupid. 2) They don't mind people using it. 3) They don't know how or are unsure so they don't do it. I think proper social ettiquette and ethics would say that you shouldn't do it.
The Dean Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 most arrested are convicted. http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/can-access...nd-you-in-jail/ Is there something in that article to support your statement? And, if you notice, this fellow was NOT convicted of a felony. Decent article but this is simply stupid: If Peterson had worked for a competing cafe and had been hacking Union Street Cafe’s level 3 secure network to obtain their customer base and secret recipes, I could perhaps see a case for recourse and judicial involvement. Perhaps? That's straight-up criminal activity there. And if this guy can't see that, he's deluded. BTW, I think this case supports my earlier contention that it really depends upon the situation. In this case, the guy regularly drove to the cafe for the express purposes of using the cafe's wireless signal, which was meant for customers of the cafe. It wasn't a mistake, wasn't because his computer automatically found the cafe's signal instead of his home network's signal and can't be defended by the notion that he wasn't consciously leaching the signal. Also, the cafe owner leaves his signal open for his clients. Even though there are other ways to supply Internet access, that can dissuade leaching, it doesn't make this guy's signal fair game for everyone. But, what about the person who lives next door to this cafe? He has wireless in his apartment, as do some others in his building. When he turns on his computer one day, instead of connecting to his, or his neighbor's connection (who leaves his connection unprotected, and allows his neighbors to use his signal), it automatically connects to the cafe's unprotected signal. Would you call that guy a criminal? I certainly wouldn't.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Three of my neigbors have keys to my house. If something gets stolen, then I have to suck it up. Now if I didn't want to take that risk, I would have never gave out my keys. Isn't NOT protecting your WiFi like giving out a key? Seems like people want it both ways... Like giving out a key to your house. If I get something stolen, to behave honorably I would have to suck it up... Imagine if the insurance company found out that there are keys floating around? Think they will pay? Maybe if the thief is not one of my neighbors with a key are are connected in some way to them... Maybe?? The simplest solution to all this is that if you don't secure your WiFi, there should be no grounds for theft. IMO, they are authorizing others to use it. But really, lets cut to the chase... It is the ISP's that are behind all this... They want the most money and accounts... Why would they want to promote a culture of "sharing." They aren't the library.
The Dean Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Three of my neigbors have keys to my house. If something gets stolen, then I have to suck it up. Now if I didn't want to take that risk, I would have never gave out my keys. Isn't NOT protecting your WiFi like giving out a key? Seems like people want it both ways... Like giving out a key to your house. If I get something stolen, to behave honorably I would have to suck it up... Imagine if the insurance company found out that there are keys floating around? Think they will pay? Maybe if the thief is not one of my neighbors with a key are are connected in some way to them... Maybe?? The simplest solution to all this is that if you don't secure your WiFi, there should be no grounds for theft. IMO, they are authorizing others to use it. But really, lets cut to the chase... It is the ISP's that are behind all this... They want the most money and accounts... Why would they want to promote a culture of "sharing." They aren't the library. You can give your maid the key to your house, but it isn't OK if she robs you blind.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 You can give your maid the key to your house, but it isn't OK if she robs you blind. Good point... What's a maid? Oh, that is me! Children in school, wife working and I am set to work afternoons at 1600...
The Dean Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Good point... What's a maid? Oh, that is me! Children in school, wife working and I am set to work afternoons at 1600... Could you swing by here, my room is a disaster.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Could you swing by here, my room is a disaster. No.
thebug Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 And again, this thread says more about people's ethics than it does about their legal reasoning. We all wish we were as pure as you.
Fezmid Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Actually, the issue is black and white. You look at each situation and apply your moral code to it. Since morals are a personal belief of what is right and wrong, you've proven that the issue is NOT black and white for a population. Thanks.
Recommended Posts