It's stealing from the internet provider, yes. It's not stealing from the person who didn't encrypt their signal. If people don't want their wireless signal stolen, it's pretty simple to encrypt it. If you break the encryption on somebody's wireless signal, hell yeah you're stealing.
My questions to you : can you steal from the person without stealing from the ISP? If yes, then explain (I can actually think of one way). If, no, then do you agree it's illegal?
So by saying "it is not different", you are saying an unsecured wi-fi signal deserves as much legal protection as your home. I could take the easy way like you and give you a silly answer, but here is a serious answer: No, I think I am not doing anything illegal. The ISP is getting paid regardless, and the guy whose access point I am using is not harmed in any way.
By saying "it is not different", I mean that in either case you are invading personal property without necessarily letting that person know you are doing so, and with that person having no knowledge of what your intent is. The answer was silly because the question was silly. The legality is in question, not the punishment for the crime. Based upon your response, I can see why you feel the way you do. Your view is probably similar on MP3/CD sharing, correct?
I do agree that it is illegal because you are stealing from the ISP. The ISP agreed to provide service to one household, not to a community of apartment dwellers who happen to live near each other. The ISP is realizing less revenues because you're not buying their services while stealing.
Why is the question silly? If you say something is a crime, then I would think you would expect to hand out a punishment for the "crime". The guy that was arrested in Florida was supposed to have committed a felony. Would you agree that even if you think it is a crime, it should not be more than a misdemeanor? The reason I am asking the question is that a few seemed to argue it is a crime, but perhaps do not see the consequences of that standpoint. Generally speaking, for a crime to be a crime, I think a certain threshold of "social undesiredness" (remember, I am not a native speaker, but a fast typer, right now I cannot really find the right word I am looking for) needs to be surpassed. If something is a crime, there needs to be a punishment. Do you really think that someone deserves a punishment for connecting to the Internet through some unsecured access point? And if so, what should that punishment be? Actually, I think the two things are not really comparable. In case of the MP3/CD sharing, I do grudgingly think it is illegal under most circumstances. But I do see many policy reasons why downloaders who only download should not be criminalized (if someone was to do a Google search on Larry Lessig, I share many of his views on that issue). And I am not fond of the music industry at all, so if you think that makes my view similar, I guess it is similar.
My friend can pick up the WiFi- from the corner Starbucks (they live in apts. across the fence)... and at times I can, over a block away. Is this the same as taking it from a neighbor? I do visit the Starbucks frequently, so I am a paying customer... That "hotspot" is expressly for the customers... so what do you think? btw- I use dial-up primarily right now
Honestly, I don't know what Starbucks' policy on it is, so I can't comment without looking into it, but if it is expressly for Starbucks customers only, then yes, I would assume it's illegal simply because I'm assuming it's for customers on their premises. Whether or not they prosecute you on that is up to them.
Honestly, I don't know what the punishment should be. I have no idea how lengths of jail terms or fines are handed out, so I'm not qualified to comment on that. If it's a $250 fine, so be it. If it's a 10 year prison sentence along with a $1,000,000 fine because you caused a company to investigate and spend thousands in the process, then so be it. I am only concerned with it being legal or illegal. If it is similar, the RIAA has been successfully defending their property rights in several cases brought before the court (albeit in some cases it's because people probably couldn't defend themselves from the costs of the case). Some of the defenses you're using are similar to what pro-MP3-sharing people say when defending their actions : I'm not harming anyone, they're not losing any money since it's already been sold, etc.
Sounds like you don't quite have a good command of the English language, but prosecute means : To initiate civil or criminal court action against. I never gave him advice. Are you losing the argument and attacking me now? I see you only specific questions posed... and then jump on people for spelling errors... a true sign of a losing argument. *EDIT* : tsk, tsk... then you go and edit it.
I guess it depends on what definition you wish to use. prosecute When a local District Attorney, state Attorney General or federal United States Attorney brings a criminal case against a defendant. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/A0847BFF-795E-4E0A-8A4035B40B52CF29/alpha/P/ I won't even respond to the childish stuff about "losing an argument"... that is how children view a discussion, not adults.
If it depends upon the definition you use, then why would you not ask me what I meant instead of accusing me as you did? Sounds... childish. And come on, you calling others childish? Shall we go back further in this thread and see how childish you were? I thought not... Anywho, this argument is beat out... I've given Texas Penal Code evidence to suggest that it is indeed an illegal activity. You've given your "I don't think..." comments along with articles that both support and don't support your cause (don't skim - what kind of lawyer skims?! Wait, don't answer that!). I doubt we're going to agree on this, but it was an interesting discussion while it lasted.
I thought Starbucks made you sign up for one of those T-Mobile accounts before you could even access their signal. I don't think you can just go in there and use their connection without paying.
Yeah, it's like parking your car in someone's driveway and the owner doesn't care because they only have one car. Or entering someone's unlocked house to sit in on a couch... There's a very high assumption of the honor code when it comes to wireless sharing. Once the tools for eavesdropping becomes more prevalent and easily accessable, the issue will be less grey. Jackie's argument runs flat because if you let the logic run its course, you can even claim cracking encryption to leech (but not eavesdrop) is legal. Using his logic of the broadcast, it would be the owner's fault for not using a good enough encryption.
this is ridiculous steal steal steal, I haven't paid for internet in years. cable tv, divx movies, make your own cds, download the songs according to the order of album off amazon.com, for the love of christ, and as burroughs once said it best, "steal, steal and steal" its the only way to create new and semi-stolen original thought besides minimum wage in this country is still 5.15, now that gas has gone up in mecca, 2.13 a gallon is a bit.... there are no homeless window washers waiting for rebellion on this site
AND NO ONE GOES TO JAIL especially not a nice one! haha sorry, just saw someone post about "Well I don't know what kinda of jail times or fines are handed out for ...." Well... Lets say I use your internet, when I choose it, I have many signals, impeccable for travel So, is this like I'm getting stopped in a hick town? How much bandwidth and for how long do you use your greedy internet!! share to the people who it belongs to, not the us army
i still get back to the signal beaming through MY livingroom. Without encryption. I wouldn't be trespassing on someone's property to use their phone or extra parking space. I'm not even messing with the data to break through passwords, or encryption as I would have to do for a cell phone or wireless phone. The still active cable outlet is the best parallel I can see. Am I wrong to connect if they're foolish enough to let me do it so easily? At some point, the ISP (who's losing out on revenue) or the WIFI card makers have to come up with more effective locks on their doors. Or better processes to ensure their gatekeepers (the computer user) sets up security. The cable companies didn't just connect cable to every house and ask that only proper subscribers watch. They ensured they controlled access. It's interesting. Technology way ahead of security. Who's responsibility? Perhaps we can agree its stealing. Or unethical. But if Walmart continually left the doors unlocked at night and people helped themselves to their stuff, would anybody feel sorry for Walmart? Or would they tell them to take steps to stop the pilfering. To buy locks, maybe? Hire security? Or should they just get really good lawyers and law makers, and continue to leave the doors unlocked?
