Using someone else's wifi connection

[Cudzoziemiec]

In the past couple of days, someone near us has started up an unsecured wifi connection. And we've been using it, a little bit. It's slow and the signal is quite weak, but it works. I suspect it belongs to a place up the road that does IT training stuff, but I don't know.

The thing is, it feels wrong doing this. But on the other hand, it's not as if we're actually stealing the connection? Or are we? It seems to me a bit like going to post a letter through someone's door, discovering by chance that it's open but nobody's home, and having a nose round, but not actually taking or disturbing anything. Then again, maybe we are taking something (part of their bandwidth). What do people think about this, morally?

Not using at the mo, by the way.

[andygates]

It is trivial to secure them, therefore they must want to share. 

(They've probably left it open for the convenience of their trainees)

Using a connection isn't bad.  Hogging a connection is.

[spen666]

morally , I'd say it is wrong

Legally , it is probably thought to be wrong, but I'm not sure I agree

[Jaded]

They've probably not changed the default admin username and password either - so pop in to the router admin page and change it for them. 

[Polar Bear]

There are a number of speculative scenarios:  Just a few here...

I'd suggest that it may be illegal on the basis that you are getting somebody to pay for your use.   It becomes significant if they have to pay for use and your use results in their having to pay extra.   Might just as well mug them and empty their wallet!

Further, if you decide to do something illegal with it, it is them where the finger points.   If it is serious enough they could be innocent victims and in deep dodo.

I'm not suggesting that you would do any of these, simply that these could happen.

It could of course be unprotected entirely due to naivity, or even by devious or malicious intent of said person who installed it, i.e. to gain a free connection for themselves.  

In my view it is wholly wrong to use something that belongs to another without their express permission.  I also do not see an unprotected network as implied permission.   That's like saying that if I park my bicycle outside the pub and forget to lock it, anybody is at liberty to simply take it for their own use.

[MSeries]

In my opinion it's bandwidth theft. Some people do not secure their wifi deliberately though and are happy to allow others to use it. If you use it, they may of course  snoop your packets and steal you data.

[Pancho]

But the protocols do give express permission to use it.

Your computer asks "is this an open wifi link for me?"

And their system responds "sure, go ahead"

Of course, they can set it to respond "give us a password first" - but they haven't.

But, by connecting, you have asked the question.

[andygates]

Unless you're being abusive - say by torrenting or watching youtube all day - then this is a no-loss scenario.  The operator of the wifi point is not losing anything.  No harm, no foul.

[Polar Bear]

You can't say how much of a loss it might be because you don't know the circumstances of the contract and the owner of the connection.   

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish?   

Just because you can get at something does not make it right that you should:  Morally or legally.

   

[Polar Bear]

But the protocols do give express permission to use it.

Your computer asks "is this an open wifi link for me?"

And their system responds "sure, go ahead"

Of course, they can set it to respond "give us a password first" - but they haven't.

But, by connecting, you have asked the question.

The protocols are not the owner.   It is not express.  It is a programmed and unintelligent response.

[iakobski]

morally , I'd say it is wrong

Legally , it is probably thought to be wrong, but I'm not sure I agree

Morally, I'd say it's fine (as long as you don't do anything silly with the connection)

Legally, it's definitely illegal (communications act) but apart from a few cases years ago, pretty much no-one gets done for it. Probably because if you don't want someone on your router now you just set a password rather than go whining to the police.

As for people claiming leaving an AP open counts as permission, that would get nowhere as a defence...

[MSeries]

So doing something illegal can be considered morally fine ? 

[andygates]

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish? 

Not a valid comparison.

Should you be able to pump your tyre up with a pump left on the owner's wall, replacing it after use?

[LEE]

Morally it's wrong.  You are reducing the potential performance of their network that they are paying for.

In effect the pump they paid for is unavailable for their use whilst you are using it to inflate your tyres.


Edit.  Me?  I'd jump at the opportunity to download all that bestialty and kiddy porn I've been hankering after and laugh as I watched your neighbours get carted off to jail as disturbed "Nonces".

But, morally, it's wrong, I would know that as I watched.

Edit.  Maybe it's time I thanked Pete Townsend for leaving his WiFi unsecured.

[Charlotte]

Wot Andy said.

Until the recent bullshit about people being sued for copytheft after others have used their wifi to go torrenting, I used to leave mine wide open.  My feeling was that as I had an all you can eat deal and I wasn't a heavy user, it was the egalitarian thing to do.

When I was out and about, if I came across a similarly unsecured network, I'd just see it as karmic balance and log on.

Of course, these days, we run WPA at home and when I'm out and about, I'm massively careful about any unsecured network I use, just in case it's a honey trap.

[Polar Bear]

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish? 

Not a valid comparison.

Should you be able to pump your tyre up with a pump left on the owner's wall, replacing it after use?

It's perfectly valid.  Something belonging to somebody else which is not protected.   And no, you shouldn't use the pump without permission of the owner.

If they'd left their car keys should you be able to use their car?

[Oaky]

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish? 

Not a valid comparison.

Should you be able to pump your tyre up with a pump left on the owner's wall, replacing it after use?

It's perfectly valid.  Something belonging to somebody else which is not protected.   And no, you shouldn't use the pump without permission of the owner.

If they'd left their car keys should you be able to use their car?

What if they'd left the car keys with an electronic device that spoke the words "here are my keys, please feel free to use this car" when you went to pick up the keys?  How is that different to the wifi protocol handshake that goes on with an unsecured wireless network?

[LEE]

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish?  

Not a valid comparison.

Should you be able to pump your tyre up with a pump left on the owner's wall, replacing it after use?

It's perfectly valid.  Something belonging to somebody else which is not protected.   And no, you shouldn't use the pump without permission of the owner.

If they'd left their car keys should you be able to use their car?

What if they'd left the car keys with an electronic device that spoke the words "here are my keys, please feel free to use this car" when you went to pick up the keys?  How is that different to the wifi protocol handshake that goes on with an unsecured wireless network?

Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.

Here's an analogy that makes more sense.

You move into your new house and find that you can easily reach next door's outdoor tap.  You attach your hose and use it for watering your garden.  You realise that you are reducing the water-pressure next door, making life for them ever so slightly less bearable, but, because the tap was easy to reach, you don't see this as a moral problem.

[MSeries]

If I pick up a cashpoint card and pin number left accidentally in a cafe, should I be able to plunder as much of the cash in their bank as I wish? 

Not a valid comparison.

Should you be able to pump your tyre up with a pump left on the owner's wall, replacing it after use?

It's perfectly valid.  Something belonging to somebody else which is not protected.   And no, you shouldn't use the pump without permission of the owner.

If they'd left their car keys should you be able to use their car?

What if they'd left the car keys with an electronic device that spoke the words "here are my keys, please feel free to use this car" when you went to pick up the keys?  How is that different to the wifi protocol handshake that goes on with an unsecured wireless network?

the protocol handshake is between the devices and not the owners. The device does not own the bandwidth

[Greenbank]

Unless you're being abusive - say by torrenting or watching youtube all day - then this is a no-loss scenario.  The operator of the wifi point is not losing anything.  No harm, no foul.

The owner of the wireless may incur charges for bandwidth for the ongoing connection, so they may be losing money by you using it.

It's not a simple case of "well then they should secure it", the simple fact is that you shouldn't use what isn't yours without permission. This is no different.

Personally I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, such things are often set up to gather passwords and access information. Would you want to check your email or online banking over something that is beyond your control?

I wouldn't ever leave an unsecured connection open as I wouldn't want to have to avoid the trouble of having nefarious acts being committed from an IP address that points the finger back at me.

I do, however, run an 'open' BT FON hotspot on my wireless router and ADSL connection, but that's protected by the BT FON username/password and it's also tagged so that the traffic is known not to be me and therefore not my problem if someone does something stupid. The main reason I do this is it gives me free access to other BT FON hotspots whenever I'm out and about.

[Polar Bear]

Like I said earlier, you don't know the circumstances of the unprotected network.   Just because something is unprotected doesn't make it open use.  

People keep saying that you can easily protect a network.  Well, yes you can, if you know how to.   How many of us have relatives or friends who don't understand all these things?   I know lots of people thus.   Hell, I still have acquaintances who don't understand why they need to have anti virus and firewall software.  That is, until their computers freeze up and die, and I spend a few hours sorting it out for them.

[andygates]

Just because something is unprotected doesn't make it open use.

Absolutely.  I wouldn't use a neighbour's tap, that's rude.  Connectivity?  It's far less substantial than even a cup of water.

[Polar Bear]

Just because something is unprotected doesn't make it open use.

...  Connectivity?  It's far less substantial than even a cup of water.

How do you know?

[Pancho]

My wifi connection is open.

This is so that visitors can use it.

Am not too worried about drive-by borrowers as they'd have to stand in a field to be in range.

[LEE]

Just because something is unprotected doesn't make it open use.

Absolutely.  I wouldn't use a neighbour's tap, that's rude.  Connectivity?  It's far less substantial than even a cup of water.

There's absolutely no difference morally.  In fact, I don't think there's any difference at all.