|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
poll
by | Ethically okay for unlimited use | |
| Ethically okay for limited use | |
| Usage is questionable, but I'll do it anyway | |
| Equivalent to stealing, but I'll do it anyway | |
| Equivalent to stealing and I won't use it | |
| Perfect for all of my criminal activity |
Add a Comment (17)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
It's interesting to see this.. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 January 2008
Ethical relativism at it's best..
Someone is *paying* for that service, and if you use it, you are stealing. It simply doesn't matter that they don't have it locked down and secured; if they don't explicitly say 'Free for Everyone to Use', then it's not yours to use.
I'd like to ask an ethical equivlalent to this question:
If you were walking down the street and passed a car that was unlocked, with keys in the ignition and the motor running, would you use it?
Sure..you might say ' that's different; there are laws against that'.. My answer to that is simply this-- it's NOT different in theory; just because it's not written down on some piece of paper somewhere doesn't mean it's not ethically wrong. Taking/using anything without permission from the owner (or, if the owner is not allowed by legal means to transfer/share ownership) is stealing; there are no exceptions.
And we wonder why there are drive by shootings or school shootings. There are no absolutes anymore; everything is relative. It's not just limited to stealing wi-fi or music (tho' I do think the RIAA is wayyy out of control; just make them pay for the songs they have illegally downloaded and go on); it extends everywhere in modern life. If there is a perceptive gray area, then it's ok to do it--even though you don't have explicit permission.
In case you can't guess..as of this moment, I'm the only respondant who thinks it's stealing and I wouldn't do it.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 17 January 2008
If you were walking down the street and passed a car that was unlocked, with keys in the ignition and the motor running, would you use it?
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.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 17 January 2008
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.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
But it's another if a device auto-configures.
If you're using one of those devices, and you're not near your own wireless network, they by default you know what's going on.
Another reason I don't carry any of those wireless devices unless forced to--Ephesians 5:3.
Since I know the device will accidentally steal wireless, I won't put myself in that position.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by NYoumans :: NR3 :: on 18 January 2008
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.
Hold on a second by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 18 January 2008
If I steal a car I deprive the owner of its use. If I am on my neighbors wireless, he can still use it. The whole neighborhood can probably use it without depriving him of its use. The only person that is being deprived is the internet service provider losing out on fees.
Devil's Advocate by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 18 January 2008
If I am on my neighbors wireless, he can still use it. The whole neighborhood can probably use it without depriving him of its use.
I will add that ISPs that secretly use bandwidth caps (like ComCast was caught doing) will "deprive" the paying owner of the network of his access.
There should be an onus on the wireless owner to secure it, however. Let's jump back to the car analogy for a moment. If you leave your car unlocked in New York City with the keys in it ... you are an idiot and while the NYPD will probably make "an effort" to locate your car, that effort will be cursory at best after they laugh their asses of at you. Responsibility and Privilege go hand in hand.
RE: Hold on a second by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
If I steal a car I deprive the owner of its use. If I am on my neighbors wireless, he can still use it.
But not completely--you are depriving him of part of his bandwidth (I'm not going to get into the whole ComCast debacle at this point--it's not relevant, but cudos to VNut for pointing it out) that he has paid for; ergo it's still stealing.
Perhaps a better analogy would be an ink pen--where the buyer of the pen 'buys' a certain amount of ink; and if you use it, you deprive him of part of that ink.
RE: Hold on a second by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 January 2008
That still isn't a sound analogy. You'd have to say the buyer pays to be able to use a certain amount of ink every hour. Also, in order to show the owner is deprived of anything, you have to show the infringer is using so much ink the owner isn't able to use what he desires.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
Ethical norms do not always hold up.
1. If Ethical norms do not hold up, then they're not 'norms'. You can't say it's not unethical to do 'X' if 'Y' condition exists. That's ethical relativism, and you might as throw ethics out the windows. The consequences of an action are irrelevant--it's the action itself that determines ethical/unethical behavior.
2. A lack of absolutes is exactly why we have drive-by shootings. We're teaching our children than ethics apply differently to different situations; and that's just pure garbage. Drive-by's happen merely because someone 'disrespected' another person--and the shooting is considered to be a perfectly ethical reaction given the circumstance.
The belief that ethics are relative (or situational) is the true slippery slope.
As to your smoking comment, actually there is proof; there is an excerpt here that references the conclusion of a study here that you have pay to read.
As to the 'consequences' of using someone's wireless--you're using bandwidth aren't you? depriving them of the full use of what they have paid for--just as in taking the car.
RE: It's interesting to see this.. by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
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.
Absolutes.. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 January 2008
ldsudduth hits the nail on the head---
The world is too filled with nonsense about 'intent'. Intent is hogwash--if you eat the apple or use the wi-fi or take a paperclip from the office without asking it is, in plain and simple language, stealing.
There are no gray areas in ethics; it either is or isn't. The pen analogy works because by using the wi-fi, you are depriving the person paying for the bandwidth of their rightful use of that bandwidth permanently--they can never regain the bandwidth used during that specific time period; just as you are depriving the person of the ink in the pen that was paid for. The only difference is the transcience of the wireless; there are no perfect 'real world' analogies to the transient nature of wi-fi, so you have to extract the time moment.
unwitting users not free from liability by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 18 January 2008
On that note, should people who are incompetent in configuring their computers be charged as liable when they allow their computers to become infected with malware joining them into BotNets?
If it could be proven that computer X was part of a BotNet that hacked my company's asset, than the owner of X should be liable. After all, I can never regain the time I spent tracking the problem, fixing the problem, etc.
I don't think they can get away with being unwitting computer users one moment and then be able to claim criminal charges against someone the next.
RE: unwitting users not free from liability by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
I think so, yes.
Ignorance is no excuse; but you could easily make a case that improper configuration of your computer (in this day and age where information is so readily available) is equal to negligence and is no excuse. So, if Cletus gets a virus that infects my network, then he should be made to share in the cleanup cost with everyone else in the botnet.
Of course, we weren't talking about criminal charges, but rather the ethical considertion of using an unsecured wireless connection that is not explicitly designated as free and available.
RE: unwitting users not free from liability by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 18 January 2008
Yeah - it didn't sound entirely like what I meant it to after writing.
Of course, we weren't talking about criminal charges, but rather the ethical consideration of using an unsecured wireless connection that is not explicitly designated as free and available.
Okay. So it's unethical to use an open, freely available network signal because the person may or may not have intended it to be available to all.
Is it unethical for an ignorant person to operate a computer knowing they do not know how to configure it safely such that it may be used by others for malicious purposes - cyber war, corporate hacking, identity theft, etc.
Using another car analogy ... you're blind and deaf but decide to go driving anyway and run over three kids. Liable? You betcha. Unethical? Maybe unscrupulous.
RE: Absolutes.. by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 18 January 2008
if you eat the apple or use the wi-fi or take a paperclip from the office without asking it is, in plain and simple language, stealing.
I have no argument that any of this is stealing in the absolute sense you are describing.
So rather than people trying to make it out as not stealing, it would be better if those who take an apple or two, or use someone else’s wireless once in while would just admit it might be stealing to themselves, decide that it either does or doesn’t bother them, and continue on. Some may find they are still comfortable with it; others not.
How does the saying go--- "A persons true character is determined from what they do when no one is looking."
It’s when you begin to try and apply legislation to an issue like this that terms like ‘intent’ will surface, because there has to be a gradient scale depending on exactly what was done when deciding on a ‘punishment’.
RE: funny by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 19 January 2008
While I was reading this on my laptop using my wireless, I reallized that my laptop picked up my neighbors wireless and used it's stronger signal automatically. I was using it unintentionally, because he has it out there available for use. That makes me think that if you don't properly "stow your gear" then you are making it available for public use.
It reminds me of a newspaper at the airport. If someone was reading a newspaper they bought, and they leave it to go to the bathroom or whatever, I would pick it up and read it without thinking I was stealing it. Even if they were there, I wouldn't feel I was stealing it.