Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Moral Dilemma

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,312
    Rep Power
    14

    Moral Dilemma

    From a BBC news item. BBC NEWS | Magazine | Is stealing wireless wrong?


    A man has been arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street with a laptop using someone else's unsecured wireless connection.

    Is it immoral to do this?

    So here's the thing.

    You're walking down the street in Hypotheticalville and in front of you is a gentleman who, when he walks, spills seemingly endless torrents of golden coins on to the pavement behind him.

    He seems unconcerned by this and you notice that if not picked up, these magic coins quickly evaporate. Is it moral for you to pick a few up?

    It's the kind of tree-falls-in-the-forest whimsy that an undergraduate philosopher might mull over for a moment, but back in the real world a not entirely dissimilar debate is being played out.

    The man arrested in a street in west London is at least the third person to be accused of breaching the law by taking internet service without permission.

    The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".

    It is a bit like reading your book from the light coming out from someone's window

    Julian Baggini
    Philosopher

    There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud.

    But if it can be interpreted as illegal, can it be truly said to be immoral?
    Interesting dilemma, I bet most of us wouldn't think twice about using it but is it but should we!!!

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Shoreham
    Posts
    309
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Hmmmm i Think.... 2 Invade some1's privacy is immoral......
    But There is a fine line between immoral and illegal...
    i cant think of many immoral things that wouldnt be illegal
    And who gets to decide wats immoral?
    Last edited by Vegetable; 24th-August-2007 at 12:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegetable View Post
    Hmmmm i Think.... 2 Invade some1's privacy is immoral......
    True, but using someone's internet connection isn't the same as accessing files on their computer. It's just nicking their bandwidth.

  4. #4
    Registered User SteveK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cairns, Australia
    Posts
    365
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by under par View Post
    Interesting dilemma, I bet most of us wouldn't think twice about using it but is it but should we!!!
    Isn't it against the law to steal someone else's bandwidth? Is it ever acceptable to break the law, even if you consider the law is unreasonable?

    If you consider a specific law to be unreasonable, and therefore choose to ignore it, then does that mean that any individual can choose to ignore laws that they consider unreasonable?

  5. #5
    Registered User Trousers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,349
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moron Dilemma

    This is more of a MORON Dilemma surely.

    If you are stupid enough to leave an unsecured wireless hub broadcasting and yet lucky enough not to loose all the intimate details held on your computer then you as the Moron are winning.

  6. #6
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    I do not see how, or why, stealing someones bandwidth should be against the law. Its not "unreasonable" for it to be against the law its incredibly stupid. If someone has a wifi router and no security on it they are effectively inviting any wifi enabled device to connect. Clicking a couple of buttons is all it takes to secure it, and THEN if someone tries to connect they note it is secured and even if the security now on it is very feeble and they can easily hack and use the wifi connection they now ARE breaking the law imo - as you have made it clear that you are NOT sharing. In fact the default behaviour is a router is to send an SSID, which is practically "please use me" in wireless terms.

    If you leave you car in the street with all the doors open and someone climbs in and sits and listens to the stereo for an hour, you may well be miffed but its your own fault (and lucky something worth never happened). If you lock the car up and someone breaks in to listen to your stereo...different thing altogether. i think this is what we're talking about here.

    Personally i have ran an unsecured network deliberately so my neighbours could use it if they wanted to. Its a choice. I don't think ignorance is an excuse - ALL wireless equipment comes with documentation. Whats worse - some people not only do not secure their network, they also don't even bother changing the default passwords on their router. I ran into this whilst changing the settings on my brother-in-laws router remotely. Only to discover it was his neighbours router i was changing.

    So to summarise, an unsecured connection is an implicit invite to use. And the law quoted by Mr.Par above :

    The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".

    ...does not apply. As

    a) its not dishonest to connect to a freely available service
    b) with no restriction on outgoing routing there is no reason to believe that a charge would ever apply so there is nothing to avoid - ALL paid for services gave you some sort of payment screen. If someone wants to share a wireless service and NOT have a pay screen or Terms and Conditions - thats entirely up to them. (in the case of peoples own wireless access it would always be against their contract with their ISP to charge for the service anyway - another reason why b) does NOT apply).

    nonsense
    Last edited by Dreadful Scathe; 24th-August-2007 at 08:46 AM.

  7. #7
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Personally i have ran an unsecured network deliberately so my neighbours could use it if they wanted to.
    Where do you live?

  8. #8
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by straycat264 View Post
    Where do you live?
    "have" is past tense i think you'll find - when i was back home more i choose to secure it.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Waltham abbey
    Posts
    4,610
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    i dont think its ingorance or stupidity, its just a matter of not understanding what this all means.

    I use a computer at home, its not wireless broadband connection as the guy who set it up for me said it was better not to have it. I didn't question why and i really do not understand how people can access my computer without my permission. I do have passwords but he set them up and has left me something with it on somewhere...... not sure where i put them.

    I use the internet for the very basic tools, finding sites ref dancing, porn and of course information about day to day issues. Most people use internet for this and have limited knowledge about hackers etc.

    Using somebodys internet connection without their permission is in my opinon no different to pinching somebodys ass in the street. Its not really something that is acceptable but it aint gonna kill ya.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Alongside the privacy issue, it is stealing bandwidth.

    Anyone who has run a popular server will be aware of the scum who steal bandwidth. Even scaling down to a single laptop on a domestic ADSL connection, it's a crime, and rightly so. These people are vermin and should be terminated

    As to the argument that if they don't secure the network, they deserve to lose the bandwidth. Well.... I am not even going to bother to give examples involving houses, left open doors, crooks nipping in for the family jewellry etc. It might be a daft thing to do, but that doesn't make theft acceptable. Dozy argument.

    It's against the law and morally wrong.

    (P.S. The communications act does apply in these cases (wireless LAN), prosecution has already been brought and the people convicted in the UK).
    Last edited by TA Guy; 24th-August-2007 at 10:43 AM.

  11. #11
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    4,386
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    If I was caught and charged I would try to go for the defense that the wi-fi is being transmitted and there is nothing I can do to stop it being received wanted or not ie if your walking past a Wi-Fi hotspot, there is nothing you can do with your equipment or body to protect it from the transmittion.

    With regards to sending out a transmittion, there is noting illegal about broadcasting on the wi-fi frequency. If a persons equipment is not set up to block unwanted transmittions, then it is something that is beyond my control.


    I don't know if any legal types would think that would stand up in court as a defence.

  12. #12
    Registered User Trousers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,349
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Trouble View Post
    i dont think its ingorance or stupidity, its just a matter of not understanding what this all means.

    Ermmm . . .

  13. #13
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Trouble View Post
    i dont think its ignorance or stupidity, its just a matter of not understanding what this all means.
    Which is the very definition of ignorance

    I didn't question why and i really do not understand how people can access my computer without my permission.
    They generally can't, depending on operating systems, which firewall you use etc...this is a different thing altogether. We are talking about someone using your wireless connection.

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    As to the argument that if they don't secure the network, they deserve to lose the bandwidth. Well.... I am not even going to bother to give examples involving houses, left open doors, crooks nipping in for the family jewellry etc. It might be a daft thing to do, but that doesn't make theft acceptable. Dozy argument.
    If you are going to liken someone using your publically broadcasted bandwidth to leaving your door visibly open, then they would go into your house watch tv, have a look round at your pictures and leave again, without disturbing a thing. There is no theft involved whatsoever. What would the police do if you reported this - at worst you'd get charged with "breach of the peace" (well in Scotland anyway).

    It's against the law and morally wrong.
    no and no. The law is applied wrongly and it is NOT against the law.

    (P.S. The communications act does apply in these cases (wireless LAN), prosecution has already been brought and the people convicted in the UK).
    Yes, and wrongly.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post

    If you are going to liken someone using your publically broadcasted bandwidth to leaving your door visibly open, then they would go into your house watch tv, have a look round at your pictures and leave again, without disturbing a thing. There is no theft involved whatsoever. What would the police do if you reported this - at worst you'd get charged with "breach of the peace" (well in Scotland anyway).

    no and no. The law is applied wrongly and it is NOT against the law.

    Yes, and wrongly.
    I liken it to leaving your car window open, a thief leaning in and stealing the radio. It might be stupid to leave your car window open, but that doesn't make the theft right.

    Or, if you want a better one that's easier to relate to, it's like having electricity supply cables outside your house which some bugger cuts into and starts stealing your electricity you pay for. Is that not theft ?...

    ...Well, actually it's not under the Theft Act, because electricity is not property, but it is illegal, 'unlawful abstraction' or something.
    However, these days, bandwidth is very rarely sold unmetered, mostly it's you pay xxx, and you get yyy. This makes a solid argument for having purchased this block of bandwidth, it is your property. If someone else uses it and you are unable to, your property has been stolen.

    Also, accessing a computer without owners permission is also an offence is it not ? (surely that's covered by the computer misuse act, or possibly even the anti-terrorism acts?).

    And then there is the Communication Act.
    Section 125 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to obtain an electronic communications service with the intention of avoiding payment. Halsburys Laws of England suggest:
    A person who: (1) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service; and (2) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence. A person guilty of such an offence is liable: (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
    Pretty well covers it anyway.

    You may like to think it's not illegal, you may like to think it's an okay thing to do, but the law has already passed judgement. It's gone to court. The 'stealer of bandwidth' was prosecuted and fined.
    You saying in capital letters "'NOT' against the law" unfortunately doesn't make that the case and while I accept that there seems to be a lot of talk of new laws to tighten things thngs up regarding the theft of bandwidth, it doesn't mean it's necessarily legal now.


    To argue it's okay to steal someones bandwidth, cable, gas, electricity, any service they pay for... I'm surprized at you DS
    Last edited by TA Guy; 24th-August-2007 at 11:51 AM.

  15. #15
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    I liken it to leaving your car window open, a thief leaning in and stealing the radio. It might be stupid to leave your car window open, but that doesn't make the theft right.

    Or, if you want a better one that's easier to relate to, it's like having electricity supply cables outside your house which some bugger cuts into and starts stealing your electricity you pay for. Is that not theft ?...
    Yes, they would be theft. They are not even similar to use of someone elses bandwidth though. So I feel you are barking up the wrong tree in a completely different town

    However, these days, bandwidth is very rarely sold unmetered, mostly it's you pay xxx, and you get yyy. This makes a solid argument for having purchased this block of bandwidth, it is your property. If someone else uses it and you are unable to, your property has been stolen.
    Bandwidth is not "very rarely sold unmetered" its very common indeed. But lets say you do have metered access, then YES a person can be said to be stealing your bandwidth by using some of your quota, but lets make this clear - they are only using it because you advertise the fact that its there. Say you have to pay water bills for the water you use but you put a tap outside the front of your house with a sign "drinking water" above it. Is it theft for someone to take a drink? You should know enough about taps to know to remove it if you don't want people to drink your water. Shouldnt you? If you think thats THERE fault for YOUR ignorance - then really, you aint got much "upstairs"

    Also, accessing a computer without owners permission is also an offence is it not ?
    Yes, but what has that got to do with using someones broadband ? Its a router not a computer system.

    Halsburys Laws of England suggest: < quotes >
    I commented on the laws above. They do not apply in this case as far as I can see.

    You saying in capital letters "'NOT' against the law" unfortunately doesn't make that the case.
    I stand by that. The courts are using a law that does not apply to prosecute.


    To argue it's okay to steal someones bandwidth, cable, gas, electricity, any service they pay for... I'm surprized at you DS
    i'd be surprised too, if I had done such a thing. But i haven't

  16. #16
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    If you are going to liken someone using your publically broadcasted bandwidth to leaving your door visibly open, then they would go into your house watch tv, have a look round at your pictures and leave again, without disturbing a thing. There is no theft involved whatsoever. What would the police do if you reported this - at worst you'd get charged with "breach of the peace" (well in Scotland anyway).
    Is trespass not illegal in Scotland? AFAIK it is in England...

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Bandwidth is not "very rarely sold unmetered" its very common indeed. But lets say you do have metered access, then YES a person can be said to be stealing your bandwidth by using some of your quota, but lets make this clear - they are only using it because you advertise the fact that its there. Say you have to pay water bills for the water you use but you put a tap outside the front of your house with a sign "drinking water" above it. Is it theft for someone to take a drink? You should know enough about taps to know to remove it if you don't want people to drink your water. Shouldnt you? If you think thats THERE fault for YOUR ignorance - then really, you aint got much "upstairs"
    Well, thankfully the law doesn't require the victims to have 'much upstairs' However stupid it might be, having external electricity wires, having a tap in the front garden, having unsecured wireless doesn't actually effect whether or not it's against the law to steal. I could leave my inherited 50 carot diamond on the front lawn and go for a pint down the pub. It may be a very, very stupid thing to do but it has absolutely no relevance as to whether it's against the law to walk in, pick it up and steal it.

    Most broadband connections are metered now. You get xxx GB's of download and if you exceed that amount, you pay extra. Essentially you pay xxx for yyy. There are very, very few packages where you have unrestricted bandwidth or it's unmetered. There are a few 'pay as you go' packages, which would be treated similarly to the metered packages.

    I am curious tho, why to you think the communications act 2003 doesn't apply ?
    What is it about...
    (1) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service; and (2) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence.
    that you feel doesn't apply ?
    You think it's honest to piggy back on someones else wi-fi without permission and use the bandwidth they have paid for ?
    You think they are going to pop round and pay the charge later ?
    I'm curious.

  18. #18
    Registered User Lynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    8,925
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    I could leave my inherited 50 carot diamond on the front lawn and go for a pint down the pub. It may be a very, very stupid thing to do but it has absolutely no relevance as to whether it's against the law to walk in, pick it up and steal it.
    It would have complete relevance as to whether your insurance would cover it as theft though - they definitely wouldn't. (Also many policies wouldn't cover theft from your home if you left your door open - there has to be FVE - forcible or violent entry - to the property).

    Largely unrelated to the conversation as you guys are talking about the law, but it does illustrate that it makes sense to protect your property against theft by restricting access.

    (I do have access in my house to a broadband connection from somewhere but I don't use it, I use my own dialup. )

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post

    Yes, but what has that got to do with using someones broadband ? Its a router not a computer system.
    The laptop the guy was using was a computer, yes ?
    The Computer Misuse act doesn't restrict itself to target computers, it's about computer misuse whether they be the target or the originating computer....

    In actual fact, I don't believe this act covers it for different reasons, which is why I gave it only one line

  20. #20
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    I'd like it explained to me how it was dishonest – who was he being dishonest to?

    I'm with DS, I don't think the law adequately covers using unsecured internet access without explicit permission.
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Starting a new dance dilemma
    By Bravetart in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 24th-May-2007, 05:56 PM
  2. Moral outrage, ethical dilemma
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st-December-2006, 09:37 AM
  3. Smelly Dilemma
    By Swinging bee in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 23rd-September-2005, 01:54 PM
  4. London Wednesday dilemma!
    By Divissima in forum Social events
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 27th-February-2004, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •