Is it wrong to hijack your neighbours router?

[Druchii]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Don't some people purposely leave their connections open for strangers to use?

I left a 1Mb down 100k up connection open to see who connected. It was one person, god knows who, kept tabs on bandwidth etc (ran a few tests while they were usiong it) seems they were doing no downloading, and if they were, they must have been doing it slowly

Probably checking email or something, with Windows autoconnecting.

Shut it off a good few months ago after leaving it up for a week.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

http://www.out-law.com/page-7969

I think the key word is the one I've highlighted in red. If I "hack" my neighbour's WEP, or download illegal material, that is dishonest. Checking my emails on an unsecured network is not.

Nice editing of the link - you missed out part, which negates your point.
"Two people have been arrested in the UK for using another person's wireless internet access without permission. Neither was charged but both were cautioned for dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment"

Oxford Dictionary definition of dishonest
• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere

Could you explain what is "honest, trustworthy, or sincere" about using your neighbours broadband connection without their permission?

btw, Oxford definition of honest:-
adjective 1 free of deceit; truthful and sincere. 2 fairly earned

I would put it to you that your usage of your neighbour's connection is, according to the dictionary, dishonest (whether or not you are using it for illegal downloads or by cracking their WEP). They had best not leave their car in their driveway with the keys in - you might borrow it to go to the shops (it can't be illegal, because you haven't stolen their keys or you are not going to use it to rob a bank).

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

...Oxford definition of honest:-
adjective 1 free of deceit; truthful and sincere. 2 fairly earned

I would put it to you that your usage of your neighbour's connection is, according to the dictionary, dishonest (whether or not you are using it for illegal downloads or by cracking their WEP). They had best not leave their car in their driveway with the keys in - you might borrow it to go to the shops (it can't be illegal, because you haven't stolen their keys or you are not going to use it to rob a bank).

Well, if you insist on citing the OED, lets have a closer look:

Deceit: The action or practice of deceiving; concealment of the truth in order to mislead; deception, fraud, cheating, false dealing.

How is "checking emails on an unsecured wireless network" deceitful? Is the truth being concealed? Is anyone being misled? Who is being cheated? Will VM charge them anything on top of the monthly fee?

The example of the car is flawed because to gain access I would have to enter my neighbours property (their car). A more apt analogy would be me reading the newspaper at night by the light of my neighbour's external halogen lamp, the energy of which happens to be overspilling onto my property.

Except that your data is entering your neighbour's house, using their router to access the internet.

Anyhoo, as you stated, if you do it you are breaking the law - and I quote -
"Two people have been arrested in the UK for using another person's wireless internet access without permission. Neither was charged but both were cautioned for dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment"

Nothing in there about cracking WEP or downloading illegal software - just "arrested in the UK for using another person's wireless internet access without permission."

And at the bottom of the article you quoted, was the statement -
"many users are not aware that using other networks is against the law."

Not much ambiguity about that statement, methinks.....

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, if you insist on citing the OED, lets have a closer look:

Deceit: The action or practice of deceiving; concealment of the truth in order to mislead; deception, fraud, cheating, false dealing.

How is "checking emails on an unsecured wireless network" deceitful? Is the truth being concealed? Is anyone being misled? Who is being cheated? Will VM charge them anything on top of the monthly fee?

The example of the car is flawed because to gain access I would have to enter my neighbours property (their car). A more apt analogy would be me reading the newspaper at night by the light of my neighbour's external halogen lamp, the energy of which happens to be overspilling onto my property.

You can wriggle about and split hairs as much as you like - fact is, there is legal precedent. It is 'wrong'. It is dishonestly obtaining services without intent to pay.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

...Nothing in there about cracking WEP or downloading illegal software - just "arrested in the UK for using another person's wireless internet access without permission."

And at the bottom of the article you quoted, was the statement -
"many users are not aware that using other networks is against the law."

Not much ambiguity about that statement, methinks.....

Originally Posted by Chris T

You can wriggle about and split hairs as much as you like - fact is, there is legal precedent. It is 'wrong'. It is dishonestly obtaining services without intent to pay.

I think these statements illustrate quite well the reason behind my queries, as you are basically saying "the law says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong", and I wanted to explore this in a bit of depth. Many people simply accept the laws made by government without question. This is a good thing from a policeman's (and politician's) point of view, but bad for debate on a discussion forum.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I think these statements illustrate quite well the reason behind my queries, as you are basically saying "the law says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong", and I wanted to explore this in a bit of depth. Many people simply accept the laws made by government without question. This is a good thing from a policeman's (and politician's) point of view, but bad for debate on a discussion forum.

Not really ... the OP asked a question with the apparent aim of having his actions justified or condemned. From a legal point of view it's 'wrong'.

I'm not sure how you hope to get beyond the rights and wrongs of the law when the definitions you use for words like 'deceit' are essentially legalistic?

In any case, I happen to think it's a good law. Many broadband packages are capped in one way or another (mine included) so those who take a free ride on them are committing a very real act of theft. Why should someone take something I've paid for without my permission?

[videodj]

You wouldn't split a neighbours phone line and use there telephone would you, but because it's wireless people assume it's ok.

Granted the laws aren't to clear and many people are unaware of them. On the other hand some are honest and don't use neighbours connections. For example my brother has picked up a couple of wireless networks in his street, but has never connected to them, even though he doesn't have his own connection. (He just comes and uses mine instead - cheeky sod!)

If you can't afford broadband, it doesn't give you the right to use some one elses.

So in answer to the OP yes it is wrong to hijack your neighbours router.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

From a legal point of view it's 'wrong'.

Can't argue with that, but I didn't ask if it was legal or not, because I knew the answer to that already. I wanted personal opinions i.e. Do you think it is wrong?


There are many things that are 'technically' illegal that many do not deem as 'wrong'. Like letting your kids pee at the side of the road on a long car journey.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris T

... Why should someone take something I've paid for without my permission?

I would say that if someone broadcasts an unsecured wireless network, then it is reasonable to assume implied consent - that is, my neighbour is basically saying that he doesn't mind if people use his network. If he did mind, he would do something about it.

Originally Posted by videodj

You wouldn't split a neighbours phone line and use there telephone would you, but because it's wireless people assume it's ok....

You're talking about trespass and criminal damage. I'm not.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I would say that if someone broadcasts an unsecured wireless network, then it is reasonable to assume implied consent - that is, my neighbour is basically saying that he doesn't mind if people use his network. If he did mind, he would do something about it.

How can that be so, when no court in the land would consider an unlocked car or house to provide sufficient cause to assume implied consent? At best, taking goods from an unlocked house might get you a conviction for theft rather than burglary.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris T

How can that be so, when no court in the land would consider an unlocked car or house to provide sufficient cause to assume implied consent? At best, taking goods from an unlocked house might get you a conviction for theft rather than burglary.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

You're talking about trespass and criminal damage. I'm not.

A completely false distinction. You can't pick up and discard analogies simply based on whether they fit your argument or not.

If, for the sake of argument, you were daft enough to write down your online banking details and then leave the paper behind in an internet cafe, would I be justified in law if I were to empty your bank account, arguing that your carelessness amounted to a reasonable belief of implied consent?

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

A completely false distinction. You can't pick up and discard analogies simply based on whether they fit your argument or not.

If, for the sake of argument, you were daft enough to write down your online banking details and then leave the paper behind in an internet cafe, would I be justified in law if I were to empty your bank account, arguing that your carelessness amounted to a reasonable belief of implied consent?

By the letter of the law, you are correct, no doubt about it.

But you can't make comparisons between thieving the contents of someone's bank account to stealing a bit of bandwidth from them.

They are both crimes, but are in completely different leagues. Should we start treating litter crime the same as murder and rape, just because all are deemed as illegal?

Like I said in my previous post, many things are illegal, but not viewed as wrong(even by the police themselves in some cases).

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

By the letter of the law, you are correct, no doubt about it.

But you can't make comparisons between thieving the contents of someone's bank account to stealing a bit of bandwidth from them.

They are both crimes, but are in completely different leagues. Should we start treating litter crime the same as murder and rape, just because all are deemed as illegal?

Like I said in my previous post, many things are illegal, but not viewed as wrong(even by the police themselves in some cases).

Indeed, but now you're talking about degrees of wrongness and the appropriate sanction to be taken against them - whereas you started out asking whether it was simply right or wrong.

You are debating a different question.