Title says it all, do you think that using unsecured Wifi is ok?
By unsecured WiFi, I refer specifically to residential WiFi, not commercial, seeing as commercially, if they leave it un-passworded, they probably want you to use it, (E.G. McDonalds)

I'm currently undecided on the matter, seeing as the main argument 'for' using it is, 'well, if they don't secure it, they're asking us to use it,' which is pretty weak, seeing as quite a few people don't know thatyou even can put a password on WiFi.
Also, do you see it as 'alright' if you just use it to check your email, as long as you don't start downloading a season of Family Guy?

Your thoughts?
Also, does anyone know if this is technically legal/illegal? (with sources please)

EDIT: According to this article, it is actually illegal.

Sure it's fine (thought it is already illegal in many countries including the US and Israel - under the section of: unlawful use of a telecommunication interface)

I think it's fine because any computer user who knows a bit about something computer related knows he could just install a 128bit encryption using a simple pass phrase in a few seconds. and whoever doesn't know that is slowing down the progression of the internet and his WiFi should be stolen for that reason, at least.

Plus if your neighbor has a parrot that wakes you up @ 7AM each morning, that's another good reason to steal his WiFi...

I think it's fine.

I steal wifi and it makes me happy and when I go to work happy I work harder and quicker.

As such, due to my increased efforts at work my colleagues don't have to work so hard as we share the burden - which keeps them happy - and so more people go home happy because I steal wifi.

really? as a Porifera star you 'work' harder when you have free wifi?

Yeah man ;D

When I often went over my download allowance I suddenly realised I had two unsecured internet networks in range of my computer. I don't remember exactly how much/where I looked it up, but I am pretty sure that the conclusion I came to was that in Australia, so long as you A)Use it within reason (no Family Guy) and B)Only use the internet - don't 'hack' into his personal files - then it is officially legal.

Whether it is morally ok is up to each user to decide. I used them for small downloads (web surfing, etc) for somewhere from a few days to a week and a half-ish and I don't think that that was too wrong.

I won't vote yet because my exact opinion is not covered there.

Just a quick add on, according to this, it is actually illegal, but they'll never be bothered going after you.

it's all cool until it's your wifi being stolen

It's so easy to set up a password nowadays really there is no excuse why your wireless shouldn't be secured. If you're to stupid to not set it up properly, you deserve to have people leech off of your wireless.

It's all cool as long as you don't abuse it.

It's wrong, you're not paying for it so you don't deserve to use it. Simple as.

Why should some other household pay so you can use the internet?

Why should people have to pay for the use of internet in general? There is no wear on the equipment other than dust accumulation upon server fans. The only thing that they use our money to pay for are new connections and server locations, and once they're up there is nothing required to run them (other than power bills) as they are only connections.

If they're stupid enought not to set up security, their loss.

Meh. I never have a reason to steal anyone else's wifi and mine's secure enough that I couldn't hack it with a coathanger and a pringles tube.

The way I see it, I don't leave my computer turned on with facebook and leave it near a bunch of my friends because I'd expect to be raped. I wouldn't leave my computer in the middle of the street turned on and connected to the internet because I'd expect to find large quantities of horse porn on there fairly swiftly. Assuming the computer was affixed to a spot somehow. If you can remember to lock your doors and shut your windows then I'm sure you can remember to put a password on access to your network and access to your router. If you don't then you are really asking for someone to access your network and download a lot of horse porn.

Just for the sake of argument, say that it isn't unlimited Wifi.
There's like, a 30GB cap, and when they go over that either the internet slows down or the people have to pay more. Everyone agree using that type of WiFi isn't alright?

I'll seed my torrents to reach their quota even quicker

Oh shi* my massive post got new-server deleted.

Anybody know how to find it...?

Be happy. My response disappeared too.

I'll seed torrents on their wifi just because I can

We warned you that you would lose any posts made, in other words, it's gone.

As for the matter of unsecure wifi, it's ridiculous. People should know better than to leave their connection open to everyone. But then again, when people leave their door open you don't run in and steal all their stuff, so if people leave their wifi unsecured, that doesn't mean that you should log on to it and immediatly start downloading loads of stuff. It is stealing, just in a different way. But to be honest, I've done it myself a few times as well, but just to browse around and do the general stuff, like check email etc. Nothing anyone would even notice.

So I hear. I also hear your response pwned mine. However, the point of my post wasn't to prove that it is legal, it was to shove some sources out there because I found them. Of course, it is illegal to use somebody else's unsecured WiFi, but if you only do small things such as browsing then the authorities aren't going to do anything drastic to you - they'll probably just fine you and secure the network. At least in Australia they aren't.

Is it OK to enter somebody else's property and use all of their facilities just because the Front Door is open?

Whether you like to admit it or not, using somebody else's Internet without their permission (regardless of how secure the connection is) is, by definition, stealing.

The amount of internet used versus the actual tangible objects used are distinct.

In other words, your question should be,

"Is it OK to enter somebody else's property and breathe their air without their permission (regardless of how clean it is) just because they're located near where you're walking?

It's ridiculous to suggest that you can somehow "steal" WiFi. The reason why it's illegal is probably because unsecured networks make computers connected to them easy prey for hackers.

I see your point, Zhou, but air is not and cannot be under anybody's ownership. The person's 'whose air' you are breathing isn't paying for that air. But the person who owns the WiFi is paying for the internet that you are using.

If I paid for the electricity to have a street lamp light the front of my house, should you be barred from using it to read something?

This will hopefully be eradicated one day when the entire world has free WiFi.

Yes, if the owner of the lamp doesn't want you using his light. He is paying for it.

Why?

It's slightly different to that though Zhou. Not everyone pays a flat fee for unlimited internet each month and by accessing their wireless you may be costing them money. Not to mention adversely affecting their own internet use.

It's not like you'd climb in through an open window and help yourself to a glass of water. I mean, water costs most people almost nothing and they'll never know the difference. However, if you don't know that the tap you've used leak and then they require another callout from the water company to fix it, you've cost them money for something which seemed like it should be free. Is it right that someone should have to pay more for an internet package as a result of people piggybacking on their wireless network?

Okay, I will concede that in terms of limited Internet service that shouldn't be allowed.

Why would it otherwise be unjustified?

Wait, maybe I am missing something- but how is the person who is "stealing" the wifi connection supposed to know, and why should it be their responsibility to know, whether the internet service is limited when there isn't a password?

Possibly the same way it's the responsibility of the individual to check whether an item costs money in a shop. Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't make it something you should do. Whilst extreme, any human could kill any other, yet it's commonly accepted by the majority of society that you shouldn't.

Exactly.

Zhou - how are you supposed to know if the unsecured network has limited or not?

You don't, that's why it's considered immoral to use an unsecured wi-fi network.

I was at the train station the other day, I turned on my laptop and saw some connections were available. So I connected and got a decent signal. Via ipconfig I was able to find out his standard gateway. The name of the network gave away what kind of router he had. So I searched on google for the default login details for that specific brand, and I was able to log in to his router and I had full access to his connection. If I wanted to, I could have easily disabled his connection or make it impossible for him to connect to the router. I decided to log off and get in the train
I was shocked by the stupidity of some people though. How can you leave your network exposed like that? Having the default login details is 1 thing, but in combination with an unsecured network.. Wow...

How many people with WiFi have limited internet access?

Well, for one, every single person in Australia.

We don't have unlimited broadband down here.

Same goes for everyone in Belgium. They all have limited broadband.

Yeah, I was going to say that; you two beat me to it. I'm pretty sure that businesses and school networks can get unlimited - they'd have to, wouldn't they?

Okay, I still don't understand. Why does an international distinction justify a binding international maxim?

IE If in some countries electricity is free but in others it's not, is using the street lamp immoral for all countries?

Street lamps are a bad idea because they are public property and therefore no individual can really say certain people can and can't use its light. The government pays for the street light electricity, which comes from everybody's taxes, so everybody is free to use the street light.

But in general, the immorality of things definitely differes between countries. For example, you wouldn't walk into Mecca without a shirt on, would you? But you would do it in America or Australia.

You misunderstood the entirety of the last post.

About the street lamp, I was referring to an analogy that I had mentioned earlier about a privately-owned "street lamp" in a front yard.

About the latter part, you should re-read my post.

The argument was that if some people don't have unlimited internet, it doesn't mean using Wi-Fi is somehow immoral, but rather that it just is in that circumstance.

The private streetlight doesn't actually stand up under examination. Light is fairly unlimited. Even if you use someone else's light there's still the exact same amount of light there. However multiple people connecting to one wireless device will affect the service offered by the router.

You would feel slightly aggrieved if someone made you wait to turn on your outside tap because they'd come into your garden and were filling up a few jugs of water.

And how exactly are you going to know if they have limited or unlimited without conencting to their WiFi before knowing? (If you can even find out when in, anyway.)

When I asked exactly what types of people had limited access, the responses I got were state-specific. I in turn responded to that.



That's an actually reasonable objection.