The ethics of "stealing" a WiFi connection

Ars Technica ^ | January 03, 2008 | By Eric Bangeman

[B4Ranch]

[GATOR NAVY]

...it seems to me that the primary difference between the two is that if someone comes into my house and uses my stuff, it typically is depleted in some way, but that's not really true for using some one else's wireless.

That depends on how your ISP charges you. I have a monthly bandwidth limit. If I exceed that limit I get charged extra for the additional use. So if I leave my connection unsecured and someone else uses it, yes, they are definitely depleting my stuff.

[LexBaird]

Let's analogize your question: "If my front door was unlocked and had an 'OPEN' sign on it, and someone walked in ... does that give me the right to shoot them?" Understand?

I understand that your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be "If I held a big noisy party at my house, with free booze and eats for my friends, would it be okay for anonymous strangers to crash it, eat and drink, and split without ever saying anything to the host?" You might get away with it, it might not be illegal even, though I'd argue tresspassing. But it is absolutely unethical.

If you want to "hang an OPEN sign" on your WiFi, then name it "ctdonath2's FREE access" or "Starbuck's Free HotSpot" with SSID. But LexBaird's WiFi isn't an open sign, it's an address so my invited guests can find the party.

[N3WBI3]

I have to disagree

“Using an open WiFi network is no more “stealing” than is listening to the radio or watching TV using the old rabbit ears.”

You watching my TV or listing to my radio (or your own) does not degrade my service. You hooking into my bandwidth limited connection and using some of that limited resource for your own enjoyment most certainly *IS* stealing.

“If your neighbor runs his sprinkler and accidentally waters your yard, do you owe him money?”

No but if you move his sprinkler so it gets your flowers and not the whole of his lawn you have.. Bandwidth is limited..

“Stealing WiFi Internet access may feel like a victimless crime, but it deprives ISPs of revenue,”

That it does, in the same way cable theft steals from cable companies. Also youre stealing from the person who pays for the bandwidth.

“but that has to happen only once for that user to figure out what’s up, and fix the problem.”

Right its only a problem if you get caught. Guess what many people dont understand bandwidth and will just assume ‘the net is slow today’. I use my network for my phone as well as do many people.

“And as always, don’t leave your own 802.11b/g/n router wide open unless you’re comfortable with random surfers using your ‘Net access for their own purposes.”

And dont leave your door unlocked unless youre comfortable with people coming in to your home and taking something..

[Lost Highway]

As my grandfather used to say “Locks are to keep the honest people out”.

[Andonius_99]

If it is the wireless router that is "seen" as the IP address, who gets the responsibility for illegal actions, like downloading illegal music or pictures?

I believe there was a case recently where that exact situation happened and the owner of the router (and, by default, owner of the service) was held responsible for his neighbor illegally downloading material to his (the neighbor) computer. This was because, like you said, the router's IP address was the IP address used to download the material. Sad thing is, the guy who owned the service had no idea that his neighbor was stealing the connection.

[N3WBI3]

You left out the part where he is not a customer *anywhere*... Im sure if I bought a coffee and was having it on the patio (or in my car) they could care less..

[KarenMarie]

I have nothing more to offer this topic but semantics and implied intent.

Intent and ignorance has a lot to do with how I fell. Might be due to all the ignorant and old people who have no clue that what the default settings are that call me when they get viruses, lose speed and have a bunch of other problem on thier home networks.

I understand what you are saying and I understand what the default settings are. But ... well, I know I am not gonna win here... but, I cannot help but feel there is a huge “OOPS” factor here from people who have no clue and do not intend to let people steal/share their service. There are quite a few of unprotected connections that come up for me when I log on. But I would never take advantage of that because I did not pay for it and because I do not take it for granted that the person who is unprotected is consciously broadcasting for me to get a freebie. I automatically assume that it is an error on the broadcasters part and stand on the ‘I did not pay for that’ theory.

I know a guy who rented an apartment and did not want to incur the costs of cable internet. He made an agreement with the guy downstairs to share the connection that came thru the downstairs apartment. To me, that is a totally different thing.

I have no other argument than to say that, to me, it is different. I am not gonna win here and see that I will not change anyone’s mind... but to me, it is just different. Purely emotional.

:)

[N3WBI3]

For home use you’re 100% right but it can be dammed inconvenient for a business..

[N3WBI3]

“If you don’t password protect, then it’s not really stealing.”

Horse crap...

Thats like saying if you dont lock your door coming into youre house is not breaking and entering..

[TChris]

An analysis of WiFi "theft"

1. The original meaning of "theft" was that an object was taken without authority to do so, depriving its rightful owner of it. If an object is stolen, the thief now has it, and you don't. The cost of the theft is the value of the object lost. Punishment was historically limited to triple that value, or thereabouts.

2. "Theft" of a service is receiving that service without having paid for it. The cost of that theft is the price of the service received but not compensated. There is potentially a degree of loss like the prior case, where an object may no longer be enjoyed by its rightful owner. If it is assumed that the service would certainly have resulted in revenue, then the rightful "owner" of that revenue has lost something he cannot enjoy.

   But that consequence is less certain than outright theft of an object. It may or may not have resulted in actual revenue.

3. "Theft" of WiFi is a bit of a unique situation. It is not an object that is taken away and the owner of it deprived of its use. It is not a service for revenue which is potentially lost when it is not fairly compensated.

   WiFi is a constant service which is only partially used in most cases by it's rightful owner. "Theft" of part of that service may or may not even be noticed by the rightful owner. Unauthorized use of WiFi bandwidth will frequently not negatively impact the owner at all.

   In other words, it's often difficult to find any actual harm or damage to such unauthorized use of bandwidth.

   If, on the other hand, an unauthorized user hogs enough bandwidth to be noticeable and to negatively impact the owner, then it's a more clear-cut problem. The owner is not getting the full value for which he has paid, and it's the unauthorized user who has caused that decrease in value.

   This last scenario is most like trespassing, in my mind. The bandwidth paid for and owned by the rightful owner is much like a parcel of land of a specific size. Like an owner of a large ranch, he may rarely if ever put the entire purchase to use. The impact of a temporary user on his broadband WiFi network would be just as negligible as the impact of a hunter camping overnight on a corner of a 1000 acre ranch.

Overall, the punishment should at least vaguely fit the crime. Unauthorized access to an unsecured, broadcast SSID WiFi network should be legal or very minimally punished. Because most wireless computers will automatically connect to such networks when one is in range, the owner may easily be completely unaware that unauthorized access has even occurred, let alone have any malicious intent.

At the very worst, such access should be on the order of misdemeanor trespassing, with a $50 fine and a shake of the finger.

It should absolutely not be prosecuted under statutes enacted to punish dangerous criminal network hacking and digital espionage, etc.. That's a clear case of misapplication of the law.

[Myrddin]

The point of this thread is “is it tresspass or is it invitation?”, and cultural norms dictate that a “we’re open!” sign invites entry, while an unmarked door with a lock (even if unlocked) indicates “stay out”.

It takes special equipment and an overt effort to steal bandwidth over an unauthorized connection to a Wi-Fi access point. It's hardly an open door. The law in many states and some federal laws treat unauthorized access to another person's computer as a criminal act. The effort I make to lock down my computers and networks would be more than adequate proof that intrusion is unwanted and a prosecutable offense. I've been locking down computers for my employer since 1983.

[ctdonath2]

First off, the term "theft" and "stealing" in this discussion is much better served by the term "tresspass": nobody is taking anything, just using a path from point A to B - and whether that usage is permitted is what's in question.

Now then...
There is a cultural norm to stay out of an area which (1) does not have any visible invitation, or (2) features a physical hinderance (fence, lock) or visible dis-invitation ("POSTED", "Keep Out"). Some people are happy to share their property with casual users, and either post an invite or just leave trails unhindered. Those not so inclined build a hinderance (even if easily breached), or post signs discouraging use.
Ditto Wi-Fi: out of the box, most routers default to inviting use without hinderance ... and a great many potential users see that as a cultural norm of inviting responsible use.

Alongside the owner's responsibilities, the user has responsibilities too. I may leave my Wi-Fi connection open for public use, but that presumes users won't go running torrent servers or performing illegal acts. This is like someone with a forest/field allowing hikers to wander thru so long as little or no impact occurs.

So yes: if the SSID is broadcast, and there is no WEP key, and no other hinderance or dis-invitation indicated (like the SSID is "KeepOut"), then there is at worst fair doubt of the owner's intent to allow use, and to a large percentage of potential users that is viewed as "responsible & polite use encouraged". It's hardly "theft".

[ctdonath2]

The word you’re looking for, and more people should use, is “tresspass”.

[weegee]

Is he a customer if he buys one cup of coffee and sits inside for 2 hours?

[TChris]

The word you’re looking for, and more people should use, is “tresspass”.

If you read my whole post, you'll discover that I not only looked for the word, I found it too! ;-)

[Myrddin]

If you buy a CD put it in your stereo, open your windows, turn your stereo up so it can be heard from the street, then someone walks by and hears your CD and stops to listen you paid for the CD and the stereo. You going to have them arrested for stealing stereo and listening service?

Let's compare apples and apples here. My neighbor hired a contractor to install a fence. The contractor pulled an extension cord over to my driveway and connected to the power socket to run his saw. He did that without asking my permission. That circuit already has enough load that running the saw risked popping the circuit breaker. That was blatant theft of my electrical service without my permission. The electricity stolen was discretely billable.

If that same contractor managed to successfully connect to my WiFi and start downloading a movie over my DSL line, my network performance would have been impaired. That DSL line is my connection to make a living. When it is impaired, my ability to work is impaired. It costs real money because it takes longer to provide the service to my customers.

[ctdonath2]

It takes special equipment and an overt effort to steal bandwidth over an unauthorized connection to a Wi-Fi access point.

Only if steps have been taken to hinder unauthorized access.

For many computers (including iPhones and PSPs), simply turning it on is enough for the machine to connect to any unlocked Wi-Fi router - hardly "special equipment and an overt effort". For most others, it merely click on "show local wireless networks" and select an entry - again, hardly "special equipment and an overt effort".

"Special equipment and an overt effort" would entail, say, a "sniffer" (a rare piece of network diagnostic equipment) to detect an un-broadcast SSID, gather a few GB of traffic, and run a decryptor to determine the WEP key.

AGAIN: what we're talking about here is something that BROADCASTS "I'm here! I'm free! Anyone can connect!" and hands out DCHP IP addresses to anyone who asks for one. THAT, my friend, is an "open door".

[djf]

SSID “KeepOut”.

ROFL. Luv it!

But really, I guess what I’m saying is unless the network owner has taken some positive steps to secure it (and failed), then someone who comes along and uses it casually CANNOT be presumed to have done something immoral or unethical or illegal.

That’s kinda like a prior restraint sort of thing. If I put a couch out for the garbage guys to pick up, I can’t really fault some guy driving by in a pickup and loading it up.

If the legislatures are so hell bent on passing laws (which we already know they are) then the law should be that any AP bought OOB has to have default security.

Then, at least, it would be a valid presumption to say somebody else who is using it had broke in.

[GATOR NAVY]

First off, the term "theft" and "stealing" in this discussion is much better served by the term "tresspass": nobody is taking anything, just using a path from point A to B...

See my #122. With my monthly bandwidth limit (and it is low enough to be a factor at the end of every month but that's what I can afford to pay for), it is defiantly theft if an unauthorized person uses my bandwidth.