Stealing your neighbors wireless: a question of Ethics

[Per]

Thanks, some of you helped me shape my paper.

Later, in a teacher's office somewhere:

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

Of course it is. People have a natural dislike for freeloading. That's why there are laws against it in most places. Oh, and you dodged the question.

Law < Ethics.

That's like saying "cars < theory of combustion". Which may be true in some abstract way, but it doesn't give you a free pass to write off laws selectively.

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?

If legislation was passed to that effect, yes. If the device could also copy people, would it be OK to walk into a playground, copy a child in front of its mother and walk away with the copy? Hey it's not taking anything.

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

Your arguments are weakened by the nagging suspicion that you don't have a full grasp of what utilitarianism is. It doesn't come down to "if person X likes punching person Y more than it saddens person Y, it's a good thing", or "it's not unethical to take advantage of someone if it doesn't make them feel bad". Because then it would be right to steal lollipops from retarded people and say, "You'll get two back after you die." You can't build an ethical system on organized deception or fortuitous ignorance. You can't assume that the owners of leechable wireless services will always be ignorant of precisely that which would make them resent your arrangement. You are in effect denying that honesty, openness and shouldering one's responsibilities are things that people consider "good" in a society.

And please drop the "they'd pay anyway" and "it doesn't hurt them if they don't know" convenience arguments. Those are just ad hoc rationalizations - not valid considerations when forming a consistent system of ethics. You have two people sharing a fixed-cost resource. You're saying one of them might as well not contribute if the combined usage never hits the output "ceiling". Then why should the other one have to? Except that he doesn't know there's a freeloader there's no other difference between them, except the colour of their shorts or something, I don't know.

Here's an exercise in utilitarianism. Two people are about to get wireless internet. Each knows that whoever doesn't pay for it first can just leech off the other using the newest untraceable wireless leeching technology. So they can now either stare each other down, until one gives in and bears the full cost, or agree to get a single internet, split the cost 50/50, and adopt a dog.

Which approach do you think is more efficient?

Which approach do you think is more conducive to "good" in a society?

Which approach do you think is more likely to be accepted as "utilitarian"?

 

[Pablosdog]

I haven't read much of the previous posts but im pretty sure here in canada those with a unsecured connection are considered "public access" and that leeching off a connection is not illegal unless it is a secure connection, although i could be wrong on this.

 

[SuAside]

I haven't read much of the previous posts but im pretty sure here in canada those with a unsecured connection are considered "public access" and that leeching off a connection is not illegal unless it is a secure connection, although i could be wrong on this.

haha, that's insane (if true)

does owning a bike require using a padlock?
does owning a truck require using a steerlock?
does owning a gun require using a triggerlock? (hmz, probably)
does owning a wallet require using a chain?

 

[The Vault Dweller]

This thread is a reminder that this place is alive and well. It's been awhile since I've seen a thread grow so fast in such a short period of time and be filled with mostly meaningful posts rather than "me-too" statements.

As far as the law is concerned what you're doing is stealing. You're taking something you didn't pay for. That's simple.

Unfortunately the ethical argument is very complicated. Sure if your neighbor isn't going to notice since the bandwidth is so high then no harm to them and it benefits you which is good. Yet is that really possible? If they download something and you do as well I'm certain it would slow down the connection.

It's a shame it's not such a situation as someone in poverty taking food from a garbage can. Yes it's against the law, but ethically the owner takes no harm since they are losing the food anyway so the poor benefit at no loss to anyone. Yet the bandwidth really isn't "thrown away" they just aren't simply using it all the time.

Oh and Per owns this thread. I've never seen him make so many posts so fast not to mention he's funny as well as constructive.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Von Drunky]

Its always awesome to see a group of people really getting into something be it Fallout or this thread. However this whole thing is filled with confusion, did all of you even bother to read the full question?

 

[xdarkyrex]

Of course it is. People have a natural dislike for freeloading. That's why there are laws against it in most places. Oh, and you dodged the question.

Having a natural dislike does not in any way mean it is unethical or harmful, especially if the complexity of the situation lies in the knowledge of whether you are being offended or not. Similar in result as the idea that cussing at someone is offensive, but if you were to do it in a language they do not understand, it immediately ceases to be offensive. There is not an objective frame of reference in 'pure' utilitarianistic concepts, they rely strictly on subjective measurements of ends justifying the means. And to answer your later statement about not understanding 'utilitarianism', in theory, it does literally work like "If person A gets more happiness out of punching person B, than person B loses out of getting punched by person A". Utilitarianism is inherently a very iffy concept, but it does succeed in illustrating the maximum collective gain. It's on par with hedonism, only it inherently pays more mind to long term effects as well, and usually to the perceptions of all, not just the perceptions of the self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
For your reference.
This is why I am not a utilitarian. It's an over-simplified ethic.

That's like saying "cars < theory of combustion". Which may be true in some abstract way, but it doesn't give you a free pass to write off laws selectively.

So if something unethical is passed into law, such as reporting Jews for summary execution, would you report them? The law is not meant to be followed when it is wrong. Yes there are repercussions for it, but the law is often misused, misunderstood, or overly simplified, and in such cases, there ARE exceptions to the rule of law. It should be said that disagreeing with a law shouldn't be grounds for breaking it, and you are liable if you do, but if you find a law wildly unethical, it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the law. Especially in cases where laws are created as blanket rules to prevent the abuse of a select few, such as in the case of wireless security. The law wasn't even written explicitly for wireless connections, and the fact that the law even refers to wireless networks is only due to the verbage used in the original anti-hacking bill that predates wireless technology, which should logically imply that it does not infer "all future technologies called a network" to be covered, especially in the cases of radically different methods of implementation.

If legislation was passed to that effect, yes. If the device could also copy people, would it be OK to walk into a playground, copy a child in front of its mother and walk away with the copy? Hey it's not taking anything.

This enters the murky realm of intellectual property rights, and I don't want to go there because it is a brand new subject. But the short answer is that, no, copying is not stealing. It is a whole different and new implication. While this case does not involve copying, it does mimic the underlying idea.

And please drop the "they'd pay anyway" and "it doesn't hurt them if they don't know" convenience arguments. Those are just ad hoc rationalizations - not valid considerations when forming a consistent system of ethics. You have two people sharing a fixed-cost resource. You're saying one of them might as well not contribute if the combined usage never hits the output "ceiling". Then why should the other one have to? Except that he doesn't know there's a freeloader there's no other difference between them, except the colour of their shorts or something, I don't know.

In this case, the difference of knowing and not knowing is the difference in ethical situations. Just like, if your neighbor is in the middle of killing someone, and you don't know about it, you are not ethically constrained to do anything about it. but if you knew that your neighbor was in the middle of hurting someone, your ethical constraints say that you must act. Similar to that, but in reverse. If your neighbor knows what you are doing, or is not getting 100% satisfaction out of their network due to your meddling, than you are ethically constrained to try to make the difference, but if the neighbor is getting 100% happiness out of their service, then there are no ethical constraints, considering that disclosing the information to him has no potential for making him happier, and considerable potential for making him unhappy. Full disclosure in this case may potentially do more harm than good.

as fpr the loss accrued by the 'perpetrated', Maphusio said it best-

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.

 

[Per]

Oh and Per owns this thread. I've never seen him make so many posts so fast not to mention he's funny as well as constructive.

I'm sick and need to entertain myself. Apparently this is how I do it!

However this whole thing is filled with confusion, did all of you even bother to read the full question?

We have evolved far beyond your silly question.

Having a natural dislike does not in any way mean it is unethical or harmful, especially if the complexity of the situation lies in the knowledge of whether you are being offended or not.

But natural dislikes tend to shape emergent taboos, practices, institutions and laws. No one wants to be tricked or taken advantage of, so everyone can agree that prevarication is a bad thing; there's no "unless you can get away with it" appended to that sentiment. I note you are less ambivalent about the wrongness of murder.

Utilitarianism is inherently a very iffy concept, but it does succeed in illustrating the maximum collective gain. It's on par with hedonism, only it inherently pays more mind to long term effects as well, and usually to the perceptions of all, not just the perceptions of the self.

If you read the beginning of the Wikipedia article you'll note it says that what comprises utility/gain isn't automagically defined. It can be defined and weighted arbitrarily and in some cases must be. Anyway my contention is that when judging an action you can't just look at it as a one-off matter of resource management. If you're tasked to distribute three cookies to two kids, you could decide to eat one cookie first because they'll still get one each, it's not likely they'll sit around afterwards and go, "If I only had got half a cookie more! Now I'll grow up to be an evil dictator." Or you could consider that all of society will just run that much better if people play fair and square all the time. I'm not an expert on Kant and I hear he had some wonky notions but I think he was on to something here.

So if something unethical is passed into law, such as reporting Jews for summary execution, would you report them? The law is not meant to be followed when it is wrong.

Well, that is the classical retort, isn't it. A law can be consistent or inconsistent, it can be expedient or inexpedient, it can reflect the morality of the population it supposedly serves or it can not, but it can't really be right or wrong. Of course that doesn't mean anyone or any subset of the population can't think a specific law is pointless, dumb, to their disadvantage, and/or flat-out disgusting. Rather, all of those are guaranteed to happen in any non-Utopian society. A libertarian thinks the state is not justified in taxing him for anything else than basic functions of government. Does that mean he has an ethical obligation to resist taxation and go to jail for it? Does it make him a hero? That's a far more illuminating example than the "omg nazis" one.

Yes there are repercussions for it, but the law is often misused, misunderstood, or overly simplified, and in such cases, there ARE exceptions to the rule of law.

Of course you can always come up with exceptions. You can only stop your sister from being eaten by a yeti by leeching bandwidth. Go ahead, I'll applaud you. But in ordinary circumstances, the purpose of any law is to be applied as written. That's how the concept of having laws works. We don't always, obviously, when we think it won't matter, riding a bike on a stretch of sidewalk or whatever. But in this case it does matter; we have another person involved to relate to morally. In that situation you can go "No, it isn't fair if I'm not contributing", or "Hell yeah, bandwidth someone else is paying for", but to cut out the other person's having paid for the bandwidth by looking at it like something that just spilled onto your floor and that you are innocently lapping up is just convenient, it is an act of dissociating yourself from the moral context. It is not ethical, it is avoiding having to make an ethical stand.

It should be said that disagreeing with a law shouldn't be grounds for breaking it, and you are liable if you do, but if you find a law wildly unethical, it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the law.

Sure, but I don't think we're approaching that here. There is nothing noble about leeching bandwidth, harm or no harm.

Especially in cases where laws are created as blanket rules to prevent the abuse of a select few, such as in the case of wireless security.

Err, I mean... of course! Those bourgeoisie upstarts, mocking us from their fancy-schmancy apartments with their fancy-schmancy internet connections! "Look at me! I can afford wireless internet! Watch me plan next Friday's pogrom on my pogrom website using wireless that you do not have I think."

This enters the murky realm of intellectual property rights

A kid is intellectual property now? What about my secret family recipe you copied with the food thingy?

In this case, the difference of knowing and not knowing is the difference in ethical situations.

Full disclosure in this case may potentially do more harm than good.

Um, rrright. Wireless users are fragile beings. Well, I don't know about you, but my moral compass tells me that actually informing the guy that his internet zipper is down is the thing to do. Speculating that he might be better off not knowing seems more than a little contrived, and more likely to be motivated by one's wallet than by any deep human concern.

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.

Well, obviously not, since you have defined cost <> reduced income and gain <> reduced cost, even though the end result seems to be strangely the same. If that technical distinction is what you choose to focus on I can't say it paints you as especially upright. While I am.

 

[Kyuu]

Human beings are very good at rationalizing reasons why it's okay to do things they know they shouldn't really be doing.

And Darky, I hope you didn't mean to actually suggest that, if a device that could copy people existed, there wouldn't be any moral conundrum about copying someone's child at a park per Per's example.

Anyways, the only real way you're going to prevent someone from leeching your network is to take the necessary (and extremely easy to implement) precautions: encryption, disabling the broadcast of your network's SSID, and changing the name of the network to something besides the default name. Making it illegal (or attempting to actually enforce such a law if it is illegal) or attempting to appeal to your neighbor's conscience isn't likely to make much headway.

 

[Brother None]

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.

No, the service is not infinite. That's the "there is no competition amongst consumers" part of the common good requirements I named.

In this case, this is not a common good for two reasons:
1. It should be freely accessible. It is, but only due to oversight. In a moral sense, it is never ok to exploit a situation as it is, it is only ok to exploit a situation as it should be. This distinction is something some people find hard to grab, but it is inherent of most ethical systems.
2. There is no competition amongst consumers. There is. The fact that it is small does not factor into it, morality does not make a distinction between someone using it just to websurf or leeching off it to download 50 movies a day.

 

[xdarkyrex]

IMHO opinion, the law wasn't written for the unique situation of wireless networks.

It's sort of like if they choose to leave dmv laws intact once we get cars that move on more than just roads, like on walls or in the air. They need to implement new laws for new situations.

All laws in the future should be written in Lojban >:\

 

[Brother None]

IMHO opinion, the law wasn't written for the unique situation of wireless networks.

I'm not talking about the law. When it comes to morals, the law is rarely a good determinant for multi-media because it's aeons behind reality.

However, the economic standard of common good is easily applicable to wireless networks, just as it is easy to conclude wireless networks are not a common good and hence it is not moral to pilfer usage.