Replies

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".

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.

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.

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.

I disagree. My daily activities require frequent downloads from the SVN repository on a computer on the east coast. That occurs over a secured VPN connection that employs the bandwidth of my DSL line. That download time is part of my billable hours to the customer. If someone is stealing my bandwidth, the download time will be extended. The time billed to my customer goes up. The bandwidth thief is indirectly raising the costs of my services to my customer. My customer is directly the victim of monetary theft by the WiFi thief. When someone is stealing WiFi bandwidth, is it not reasonable to assume it is harmless.