Stealing your neighbors wireless: a question of Ethics

[Per]

i believe it's called the Tragedy of Commons, Per.

When vampires suck out your soul at night? Oh, the bandwidth thing. I don't think TotC is relevant when we're talking about stuff that isn't actually common.

that's no reason to abuse it. you dont steal candy from babies, do you?

as for the morality of the whole crap? i just dont give a fuck.

Dude, you just made a moral statement.

Here's another tack that doesn't involve woodland faeries. Imagine two people sharing the same bandwidth, only difference being one of them isn't actually aware of it. The other person could knock on the first person's door and say, "Hey, here's some money, bye." Or he could arbitrarily decide that all of his usage comes from the surplus bandwidth available, but that none of the first person's usage does. It is unlikely that the first person would agree, if he knew, that just because they never reached the bandwidth limit, it follows that only one of them should actually have to pay. Because as a business proposal, that rates somewhere around "suck". It's the modern day equivalent of saying, "I have an idea, why don't you spear that sabretooth tiger over there, and if it dies, we'll eat it." In the absence of duplicity that doesn't fly. So what it comes down to is: does it bother you to be doing something that the tribe would kick you out of the village for if they knew you were doing it*?


*Assuming "it" isn't masturbation or some other stupid tribal taboo, although I guess that too if you actually believe the gods could blast everyone with a fireball if you do it.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Gaining any unauthorized access to a computer network, regardless of type, is completely illegal in the united states.

Odds of you being prosecuted are tiny, but just so you know, you're putting your freedom potentially in the hands of the government.

Also, fyi, hackers (which is what you are deemed if you use wireless like that, whether you are or not) are lumped with terrorists when it comes to legislation and court proceedings.

It's a really far stretch, but yes, it is technically possible for you to end up in Guantanamo Bay with no rights and no appeals for the rest of your life because you used your neighbors wireless.

 

[SimpleMinded]

Like street lights.

So let me get this straight... If I want to steal street lights, it's perfectly fine. But someone else's bandwidth is not? Man... society today.

 

[xdarkyrex]

its excellent there for you could potentially getting free internet service . Its not slowing down their connection, they don’t even know your there. Would this be ethical? What laws are there in the US that would go against this?

I don't know about the US legislation, but I do know that in the realms of economics the only time it is moral to freely use a consumption item is when it is a common good, and things are only a common good when usage is not restricted and there is no competition amongst consumers (which is only possible when the supply stays the same when someone uses the good). Like street lights.

That is not the case here, hence it's not moral in an economic sense. QED.

Arguably, it isn't a consumption item, as the service is infinite, and your use of the service has no bearing on whether they choose to pay at any given month. With the 'thief' in question completely out of the loop in the decision making on the wireless owners part, and if the wireless owner, for example, rarely uses their computer, then it would be socially optimal for him to use their wireless when they are not on, thus him getting free service, and the neighbor still getting 100% efficiency. It's like a quantum state of utilitarianism, where it is optimal for the owner not to know about his use, but if the owner does, the utilitarian ethic claims that the 'thief' should attempt to share the burden of the cost for its use.

Ethics might say that you should be upfront, but efficiency and burden ethics sort of rule out that line of logic, since it is actually socially optimal for the wireless owner to be happy with their service, and if they knew someone else was using it, regardless of it not effecting them, they would feel like they are paying too much.

The mind is foolish. The most 'good' in a utilitarian sense comes out of 'stealing' wireless. So the ethics fall squarely on what you define as most ethical, full disclosure, or maximum potential for contentedness? Think of it this way, would you tell a diseased person with a 1% chance of recovery from a terrible illness that they are screwed, or is full disclosure sometimes less ethical?

 

[monsharen]

I would say it depends on the scenario and your intentions. If someone leaves his door wide open with a sign saying there is a room with food on the other side and someone who is starving walks past I wouldn't blame him for taking a portion. That's just like inviting people to do so, so plainly unnecessary if that is not your intention.

Now if there was no limit to the food in that room so that what he took would magically reappear I would blame him even less. If there was a fixed amount I'd guess it would be wrong, but if he really needed it I could probably overlook it. (This of course if up to each owner to take sides on)

If the door was locked with a sign saying "go away" and he tries to break in I'd call the cops.

I have been in situations where I really needed it, without saying I did it, so I think the simile isn't that far fetched. About the download cap; If the villain knows what kind of connection it is I would say it is starting to get creepy already.

To sum it up I think it is ok if it is for a short time, no bad intentions and the person really needs it (like trying to find a home by searching ads).

 

[Per]

Ethics might say that you should be upfront, but efficiency and burden ethics sort of rule out that line of logic, since it is actually socially optimal for the wireless owner to be happy with their service, and if they knew someone else was using it, regardless of it not effecting them, they would feel like they are paying too much.

So you're saying the amount of "good" in a system goes up with the amount of freeloaders in it, as long as the non-freeloaders don't actually know and/or mind?

 

[Madbringer]

Stealing is, by definition, wrong. It's not a question of ethics, but if you are a dick and whether you're willing to pay the price once you're caught. I mean, sure - an orphan may, for example, steal some bread to feed his starving younger sister. But stealing another citizen's bandwidth? His bloody kb/s? No, fuck you. In the block i live in now, a guy from upstairs plugged into my cable tv. I cut it off and punched him in the face.

 

[Von Drunky]

Thanks, some of you helped me shape my paper.

others are under the impression that i'm stealing internet

 

[xdarkyrex]

Ethics might say that you should be upfront, but efficiency and burden ethics sort of rule out that line of logic, since it is actually socially optimal for the wireless owner to be happy with their service, and if they knew someone else was using it, regardless of it not effecting them, they would feel like they are paying too much.

So you're saying the amount of "good" in a system goes up with the amount of freeloaders in it, as long as the non-freeloaders don't actually know and/or mind?

Is freeloading a crime if no one else loses anything out of it'?

Stealing is, by definition, wrong.

Stealing is not always wrong. That is a false dilemma, and a legalist mindset. Law < Ethics.
If you steal food out of someone else garbage because you are poor, that is considered theft, but it is by no means wrong, as it would have otherwise gone to waste. Using wireless internet that would otherwise be a ton of wasted signal is a matter of efficiency. He can't actually 'steal' the wireless, all he can do is use the unused signal. You must first deprive someone else of something for it to be ethical. If you had a tool that made copies of food for you to eat, would it be stealing to walk up to someone eating at a table, and make a copy of their food?

 

[Maphusio]

Uggs, I never picked up on this thread. I work for an ISP in the states and yes, borrowing someone else's internet is illegal.

It is considered stealing an utility and people have been prosecuted for doing so.

The person broadcasting the unsecured wireless network is also responsible for that connection. If something such as an acceptable use violation occurs for file sharing, or viral activity, that person IS responsible REGARDLESS.

You run into troubles when you see commercial based companies such as coffee shops that have an unsecured network. ISP's are often faced with the, "Do I terminate service since their network is unsecured and they continuously generate AUP violations." question.

Bottom line is, don't use unsecured networks unless you know the consequence. Unfortunately, there is allot of ignorance when it comes down to how to secure a network, and many leave theirs unsecured. Ignorance in the states is generally not a good excuse; and will not work when someone from the ISP I work for calls a customer.

 

[Von Drunky]

Stealing is, by definition, wrong. It's not a question of ethics, but if you are a dick and whether you're willing to pay the price once you're caught. I mean, sure - an orphan may, for example, steal some bread to feed his starving younger sister. But stealing another citizen's bandwidth? His bloody kb/s? No, fuck you. In the block i live in now, a guy from upstairs plugged into my cable tv. I cut it off and punched him in the face.

Lets say your have oh i dont know a spring which is an ever lasting source of water, and lets say tresspass laws dont apply. I walk by everyday and fill up a bucket of water and go home, am i really being on ethical. It will not phase you at all, just as the leach will not phase the neighbor.

 

[SuAside]

i believe it's called the Tragedy of Commons, Per.

When vampires suck out your soul at night? Oh, the bandwidth thing. I don't think TotC is relevant when we're talking about stuff that isn't actually common.

i was referring to your Kant-ian woodland fairies example.

Is freeloading a crime if no one else loses anything out of it'?

except that in this case it has been shown that the owner of the connection does suffer a loss?

 

[Madbringer]

It's my "spring" and i pay for it. You know, if it's so harmless, why don't you just go to the guy and ASK him if you can leech from his connection?

 

[xdarkyrex]

except that in this case it has been shown that the owner of the connection does suffer a loss?

I must have missed that :/
What exactly is the loss?
Bandwidth? Security? Maximum usage limits?

It's my "spring" and i pay for it. You know, if it's so harmless, why don't you just go to the guy and ASK him if you can leech from his connection?

I already elucidated on that point, go read my prior post about utilitarianism.

 

[Maphusio]

i believe it's called the Tragedy of Commons, Per.

When vampires suck out your soul at night? Oh, the bandwidth thing. I don't think TotC is relevant when we're talking about stuff that isn't actually common.

i was referring to your Kant-ian woodland fairies example.

Is freeloading a crime if no one else loses anything out of it'?

except that in this case it has been shown that the owner of the connection does suffer a loss?

The owners do suffer a loss as they are liable for what the said freeloader does. Also, if the said freeloader is using a good portion of that bandwidth (P2P networks, virus, ect) then the owner calls the ISP wondering why their Internet is broken... That sucks.

 

[xdarkyrex]

The owners do suffer a loss as they are liable for what the said freeloader does. Also, if the said freeloader is using a good portion of that bandwidth (P2P networks, virus, ect) then the owner calls the ISP wondering why their Internet is broken... That sucks.

That's only a potential loss, but if nothing to be liable for occurs, and the bandwidth doesn't suffer noticeably, is it a loss?

That's like saying if one of my friends grabs my keys and goes to my car to get something they forgot, without my permission that I have suffered a loss of security. (I obviously wouldn't care, although i might ask that they tell me next time)

 

[Maphusio]

The owners do suffer a loss as they are liable for what the said freeloader does. Also, if the said freeloader is using a good portion of that bandwidth (P2P networks, virus, ect) then the owner calls the ISP wondering why their Internet is broken... That sucks.

That's only a potential loss, but if nothing to be liable for occurs, and the bandwidth doesn't suffer noticeably, is it a loss?

If the owner of the service does not notice a loss and the leecher is not doing anything that would result in an AUP violation or using a fairly large portion of the bandwidth... I do not see a loss.

However, if you use that connection without an agreement with the owner... You are liable to be sued for damages or "stealing a utility". Also, most ISP's specifically state re-selling service or sharing service in this fashion is a violation of their AUP policy in the first place.

 

[Von Drunky]

Its not slowing down their connection, they don’t even know your there

the person in the story got lucky..thats it.

 

[Madbringer]

Stealing is not always wrong. That is a false dilemma, and a legalist mindset. Law < Ethics.
If you steal food out of someone else garbage because you are poor, that is considered theft, but it is by no means wrong, as it would have otherwise gone to waste. Using wireless internet that would otherwise be a ton of wasted signal is a matter of efficiency. He can't actually 'steal' the wireless, all he can do is use the unused signal. You must first deprive someone else of something for it to be ethical. If you had a tool that made copies of food for you to eat, would it be stealing to walk up to someone eating at a table, and make a copy of their food?

I don't follow your logic. Of course stealing is wrong, though some reasons and circumstances justify it more, some don't justify it at all.

So, the bandwidth is going to waste? BOO fucking HOO. Be "efficient", and pay for your own damn connection. It's not "utilitarianism", it's being a bum and a cheap ass.

I always believed that if something is not instrumental to one's survival, stealing it is not necessary. I seriously doubt an internet connection is such a thing.

Also, if you'd start downloading files and browse bandwidth-heavy websites, there would be definitely a negative impact on the person's you are leeching from connection speed.

 

[SuAside]

except that in this case it has been shown that the owner of the connection does suffer a loss?

I must have missed that :/
What exactly is the loss?
Bandwidth? Security? Maximum usage limits?

just to name a few:
slowing down their own surfing or downloads.
liable for whatever the freeloader does.
violation of FUP.
computer far more vulnerable to attack/spread of viral activity.
extra costs due to going over their datatransfer limitations.
etc.