It's interesting to see this..

I think you need to add a caveat to make this analogy work: You can be reasonably certain you using the car will cost the owner of the car nothing (i.e., no gas, extra maintenance costs, etc.) and will not inconvenience them in any way (i.e., they won't need to use the car until you get back). Additionally, there will be no evidence you've used the car and the owners driving experience will not be affected.

Now, I realize there are circumstances in which the owner of an unsecure connection could be affected by someone jacking his signal - but isn't that the exception to the rule?

Also, note I'm talking about making your analogy work here - not arguing the morality of the issue one way or another.

The problem is made exceptionally gray when many people DO put up their wireless for free. Unless you're running a special front end, nobody is going to know one way or the other.

What's more is that devices today are designed to work on open networks. It's one thing to intentionally configure your computer to use an open wireless network. But it's another if a device auto-configures. Skype phones for instance will "just work" when they're in the presence of an open wireless signal. PDAs and other data enabled devices will also perform similar functions. Not all of them require you to select and choose the network it uses.

Here's where your argument is weak:

1.) That's a completely false analogy. Stealing a car is not equivalent to using someone else's unsecured wireless connection:

Ethical norms do not always hold up. For example, stealing can be justified in extreme cases, e.g. if you need to rush someone to the hospital who would likely die if you didn't steal the car next to you.

Thus, you have to account for the consequences of the action.

The consequences of using someone else's wireless connection are not nearly as drastic as those of stealing a car.

2.) Even if you were to have a point about the lack of absolutes or ethical norms, making use of unsecured wireless has nothing to do with drive-by shootings either:

That's what we call a slippery slope. It's like saying that smoking cigarettes leads to heroine use. And not only is that on the extreme end of unlikelihood, it's also just plain annoying.

At face value, I suppose as you say, someone is paying for something and someone else is getting the benefit of it for free. That in the end is a “theft” of some sort even if the consequences are deemed negligible. However, it’s exactly the potential negligibility of the consequences of using someone else’s wireless internet connection that keep this issue going.

In many ways this topic is reminding me of the strange old Asian folktale "Theft of a Smell" where (in this version) a man is accused of smelling a neighbors cooked fish in order to ease an illness. In the end the man has to pay the neighbor with the "sound of money". Anyway, these wireless radio waves are all over the place, propagating onto other people's property just like a smell might. It can almost be compared with a scenario where your neighbor has roses or honeysuckle that they paid a landscaper to install, and then you reap the benefits of the sweet smell as you relax on your deck. Not many people would block their nose to avoid this.

Your pen analogy isn’t quite right unless it is a magic pen that also fills itself back up with whatever ink has been used before you return it. Bandwidth is transient, and replenishes as soon as your disconnected.

A different analogy: (For anyone reading this.) You are walking along a country lane that is lined with apple trees. You may or may not know who the apple trees belong to, but feeling hungry you pick one and eat it as you walk along. Did you steal? Technically yes, but judging from the amount of apples (bandwidth) lying waste on the ground, the consequences of your action are tiny. But at this point I have to ask a question. If the farmer who owned the land were present, would you then take the apple or would you wait until he was out of sight? If your neighbor somehow found out you were using their internet connection, wouldn’t it be an embarrassing situation? The fact that you wouldn’t want them to know says plenty about ethics.

It’s also a person’s true intent that speaks to the ethics of this situation. If you’re in your car parked in the city somewhere and you notice your laptop has connected to a nearby hotspot, so you take advantage and check your email, there is really no bad intent here. On the other hand if you hook up a cantenna and begin using your neighborhood's unsecured wireless in an effort to never pay for your own service, or even worse, to run illicit websites from, the ethics problem is obvious.