Jump to content
mortagen

Free internet... what's stopping me or you other than morals?

Recommended Posts

Come on now malkieri.

 

Even if a user repeatedly clicked cancel on a massive red warning telling them they should set a password, I don't see how that would weigh in on this matter.

How does that not weigh in?

 

Yes, the people taking advantage of the situation are too blame, but if a user clicks no on a massive red warning then they are presumably aware of the consequences. Or, even if that's not the case, if I understand your argument correctly, it's wrong to use it even if they were 10% aware of the consequences. That's just rubbish.

 

If I go and leave a soccerball in the middle of a park, and come back to see people playing with it, are the people playing with it in the wrong because they should have known not to touch it, despite it being deliberately being made publicly available? Perhaps, in a perfect world, which is pretty far from ours, where common sense tends play a part.

 

 

So your saying its ok to use some stupid noobs internet connection because they had no wifi security? And then you compare using someones wifi connection to your benefit, to leaving a soccer ball at a park?! I think you should "come on"

 

Bottom line is if you don't have permission to use it, then you shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying its ok to use some stupid noobs internet connection because they had no wifi security? And then you compare using someones wifi connection to your benefit, to leaving a soccer ball at a park?! I think you should "come on"

 

Bottom line is if you don't have permission to use it, then you shouldn't.

That has not been my point at all, if you had actually read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or, even if that's not the case, if I understand your argument correctly, it's wrong to use it even if they were 10% aware of the consequences. That's just rubbish.

 

If I go and leave a soccerball in the middle of a park, and come back to see people playing with it, are the people playing with it in the wrong because they should have known not to touch it, despite it being deliberately being made publicly available? Perhaps, in a perfect world, which is pretty far from ours, where common sense tends play a part.

You understood my argument perfectly, though I would extend it to even 100% aware of the consequences. The fact is it's their service which they've paid for and people shouldn't abuse it, whether it's completely insecure or locked down tighter than Fort Knox.

 

Also I see where you are going with the soccer ball analogy, after all wifi extends out into public areas, and therefore, if it's left unattended and insecure why shouldn't it be fair game for use by anyone?

 

The reason is unlike a soccer ball, wifi is a service as opposed to a physical possession. While a couple of people could kick around a soccer ball in a public park, at the end of their game (ideally) they would turn it over to the owner/greenskeeper, no one really disadvantaged (i'm ignoring the wear & tear on said soccerball in order to keep things simple). If you find a soccerball (or in fact, anything not yours) in a public place (this includes wallets, money etc) you legally have to turn it over to the police, who hold it for a period of time (a month I believe) for the owner to claim, which after said time it is given to the finder.

 

In the case of wifi, this analogy doesn't work. By using unsecured wifi not belonging to you, you are consuming part of that persons service, either in bandwidth or usage or, in most cases, both. They can't get that back, ever. Of course, they probably wouldn't miss it, but that point is moot. The fact is by using unsecured wifi, you are misappropriating someoneelse's services. Ok, it (usually) intrudes into public spaces, but if you heard someone repeating their internet banking details in public (for whatever reason) would it be right to log in and take any amount of money?

 

Sure, I understand the point that if you don't take measures to protect your wifi (or banking details) then you are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of by others.

 

But that doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of said people.

Edited by Malkieri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understood my argument perfectly, though I would extend it to even 100% aware of the consequences. The fact is it's their service which they've paid for and people shouldn't abuse it, whether it's completely insecure or locked down tighter than Fort Knox.

Ok. I see where you're coming from, but I would say there is no place for such an ultra moralistic stance in the real world. You can't reasonably expect to leave something available for use, knowing people will want to use it and there will be no repercussions for using it, and not expect it to be used.

 

Also I see where you are going with the soccer ball analogy, after all wifi extends out into public areas, and therefore, if it's left unattended and insecure why shouldn't it be fair game for use by anyone?

My argument is more to do with that if a person was 100% aware of the consequences and decided to make the wifi connection publicly available, then because they are 100% aware of the consequences, they must have done so accepting, or perhaps even wanting people to make use of the facility.

 

The reason is unlike a soccer ball, wifi is a service as opposed to a physical possession. While a couple of people could kick around a soccer ball in a public park, at the end of their game (ideally) they would turn it over to the owner/greenskeeper, no one really disadvantaged (i'm ignoring the wear & tear on said soccerball in order to keep things simple). If you find a soccerball (or in fact, anything not yours) in a public place (this includes wallets, money etc) you legally have to turn it over to the police, who hold it for a period of time (a month I believe) for the owner to claim, which after said time it is given to the finder.

There is no legal obligation that I am aware of to report an item such as a soccerball to the police. Would you be able to reference the relevant legislation?

 

I'm aware the soccorball analogy has many problems, but it illustrates the point that you can't leave something that people will want to, and can use without repercussions in a place where it will be used and not expect it to be used. Therefore, if it was left in such a place deliberately, with the person being aware that it will be used, it stands to reason they would not mind that it will be used.

 

In the case of wifi, this analogy doesn't work. By using unsecured wifi not belonging to you, you are consuming part of that persons service, either in bandwidth or usage or, in most cases, both. They can't get that back, ever. Of course, they probably wouldn't miss it, but that point is moot. The fact is by using unsecured wifi, you are misappropriating someoneelse's services. Ok, it (usually) intrudes into public spaces, but if you heard someone repeating their internet banking details in public (for whatever reason) would it be right to log in and take any amount of money?

I agree it's probably not right. I don't see a problem using it for something trivial like checking email, which uses a negligible amount of email. Honestly, if I was driving and had my laptop and noticed I had a wifi connection, I would probably just use it to check the news or something quickly, without worrying too much about why I was connected. It's quite an important point in Australia, where we do have serious bandwidth caps.., but I was arguing more from a country neutral point of view, where this is not always an issue.

 

But that doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of said people.

I agree with this, however, if someone who was 100% aware of the consequences knowingly made their connection available, knowing people will use their connection, are they being taken advantage of...in a negative way? Considering we are talking about a person 100% aware of the consequences, and lets also say knowledge relevant to limiting the damage done...then I would say it's not possible to take advantage of that person in a negative way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't reasonably expect to leave something available for use, knowing people will want to use it and there will be no repercussions for using it, and not expect it to be used.

True, I believe if I left a wifi network unsecured it wouldn't be long before someone would use it without my consent. Im not arguing that.

 

I'm just saying I wouldn't do it, because I would view it as a form of trespass + theft.

 

My argument is more to do with that if a person was 100% aware of the consequences and decided to make the wifi connection publicly available, then because they are 100% aware of the consequences, they must have done so accepting, or perhaps even wanting people to make use of the facility.

But how would you know this from the street, short of the SSID been set to "free internet" or something to that effect?

 

As for the legal obligation for reporting the soccerball, though it *technically* exists you would never be convicted of it. However bags of money will get you convicted. Intentionally depriving the rightful owner of their property is termed theft (or lacerny by finding). There's interesting discussion here too. (also covers buried treasure).

 

I still think it's wrong in terms of checking email, but I would class that at the same level as drinking milk out of the carton, or jaywalking. From a country neutral point of view, I think it still applies to some extent. As long as the use is minor however, it's only slightly wrong. If you're leeching bittorrent 24/7, then that (should be) criminal.

 

Your last point about 100% aware people, loops into my point about how would you know whether the person intentionally left their wifi unsecured or whether it's some person who just can't be bothered remembering passwords? I would err on the side of caution and would assume the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, I believe if I left a wifi network unsecured it wouldn't be long before someone would use it without my consent. Im not arguing that.

 

I'm just saying I wouldn't do it, because I would view it as a form of trespass + theft.

If people know that something will be used if they leave it, surely they are then fine with it being used?

 

But how would you know this from the street, short of the SSID been set to "free internet" or something to that effect?

Read the rest of the thread :)

 

If someone is 100% aware of the consequences as with our hypothetical man, then if he decides to leave his wifi network open, then he must be fine with it being used.

 

Why would someone, who was 100% aware of the consequences, decide to leave a WIFI network open and broadcasting, knowing it would be used, if they were not OK with it being used?

 

An expectation of decency is not a valid argument.

 

As for the legal obligation for reporting the soccerball, though it *technically* exists you would never be convicted of it. However bags of money will get you convicted. Intentionally depriving the rightful owner of their property is termed theft (or lacerny by finding). There's interesting discussion here too. (also covers buried treasure).

There is no such legislation that I am aware of requiring you to report something as insignificant as a soccerball to the police.

 

I still think it's wrong in terms of checking email, but I would class that at the same level as drinking milk out of the carton, or jaywalking. From a country neutral point of view, I think it still applies to some extent. As long as the use is minor however, it's only slightly wrong. If you're leeching bittorrent 24/7, then that (should be) criminal.

What about countries where people have unlimited download quotas and blistering fast speeds? How is the owner being disadvantaged?

 

Your last point about 100% aware people, loops into my point about how would you know whether the person intentionally left their wifi unsecured or whether it's some person who just can't be bothered remembering passwords? I would err on the side of caution and would assume the latter.

This is getting away from our hypothetical man who is 100% aware. If he was 100% aware, then not being bothered to remember passwords is not a valid excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such legislation that I am aware of requiring you to report something as insignificant as a soccerball to the police.

From the Criminal Code Act 1995

131.3 Appropriation of property

 

(1) For the purposes of this Division, any assumption of the rights of an owner to ownership, possession or control of property, without the consent of the person to whom it belongs, amounts to an appropriation of the property. This includes, in a case where a person has come by property (innocently or not) without committing theft, any later such assumption of rights without consent by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

 

Like I said, this would never be applied in the case of a soccerball, as it would be a waste of time. But it's still the law.

 

What about countries where people have unlimited download quotas and blistering fast speeds? How is the owner being disadvantaged?

They have to pay for it while others don't. Also, even if there was no quotas and speeds were always fast, it's still their property, I think people should respect that.

 

If someone is 100% aware of the consequences as with our hypothetical man, then if he decides to leave his wifi network open, then he must be fine with it being used.

 

Why would someone, who was 100% aware of the consequences, decide to leave a WIFI network open and broadcasting, knowing it would be used, if they were not OK with it being used?

 

An expectation of decency is not a valid argument.

An expectation of decency is a valid argument. It's what our society is built on. I expect people not to read my mail from my unsecured mailbox, should the blame for this be placed upon me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html"]From the

Like I said, this would never be applied in the case of a soccerball, as it would be a waste of time. But it's still the law.

Actually it's not. 131.3 makes no reference to having to report property to the police. Furthermore, in the case of a soccerball, which has no relevance to a debate on open wifi, I'm sure there's a clause relating to abandonment.

 

They have to pay for it while others don't. Also, even if there was no quotas and speeds were always fast, it's still their property, I think people should respect that.

You have a circular argument here. If someone is 100% aware of the consequences, and makes their connection open, then they are doing so knowingly. If someone sees an open wifi network, that they are for the purposes of this argument, 10% aware that it was set up knowing that people would make use of it, then how is it wrong to make use of it?

 

An expectation of decency is a valid argument. It's what our society is built on. I expect people not to read my mail from my unsecured mailbox, should the blame for this be placed upon me?

If an expectation of decency was a valid argument in the world we live in for the context you give, then why do we have locks on anything?

 

My point here, is that if you know something is going to be used, and deliberately leave it so it can be used, then you can't be upset when it gets used.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this both ways:

 

1. It is illegal to use other internet.

2. It's there fault for not securing it.

 

Also this antenna will stand out on a roof and you can only pass it off as wifi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure its morally wrong because grandma pays $70 to telstra down the street for 12gb of data ( telstra rips her off) then I simply make use of that service which shes going to use not even 1gb of. I dont go over her limit so she doesn't get charged for excess usage. if people are not up which technology enough to read the instructions on there router then they are ignorant and shouldn't be on a computer in the 1st place. Who cares if they dont know that agrument dosent hold up for long. Its all in the documentation and if they cant read it then bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure its morally wrong because grandma pays $70 to telstra down the street for 12gb of data ( telstra rips her off) then I simply make use of that service which shes going to use not even 1gb of. I dont go over her limit so she doesn't get charged for excess usage. if people are not up which technology enough to read the instructions on there router then they are ignorant and shouldn't be on a computer in the 1st place. Who cares if they dont know that agrument dosent hold up for long. Its all in the documentation and if they cant read it then bad luck.

So I take it you know everything about every piece of tech you use, whether it be a computer, car, tv, or whatever and can fix it if it is not working right?

People are not ignorant if they do not understand about wireless security, they just don't know about it. Big difference.

 

Going on your post I could call you ignorant as you don't seem to know how to use a spellchecker as you have multiple obvious spelling mistakes in your post. So you should obviously stop posting till you can learn how to use your software properly.

 

I often have to deal with people who just cannot get their head around things like wireless security and these are by no means dumb people. EG my mother who is now 82 and when in her 60s went back to uni and got a BA with Hons in Aus political history. Hardly an ignorant person. Or one of my uncles who was a professor of biology at before retiring. http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/biogs/P000769b.htm

I would hardly call him ignorant. Another Uncle who was State Librarian of WA for years is also hardly ignorant yet he does not understand this stuff fully.

One of my cousins gets me to do his PC repair and diagnosis, including setting up wireless access, yet he somehow manages to run a very successful Solar Power business and has his commercial piolts licence.

Or one of my customers who successfully manages a small motel but cannot "get" how wireless works, same for his wife who is a phsychologist.

Need I go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for the love of dick don't bring this thread of circular arguments back to life. You've bumped a thread which is over two and a half months old.

Edited by segger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×