Sean Lovelace—
Is it legit/ethical to jump on someone’s wireless access?
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
I do it all the time. Probably not.
depends on what you’re using it for. checking gmail, no. tweeting, yes
fuck your morality.
If someone leaves their wireless unprotected that’s kind of their problem, isn’t it?
if people don’t want their wireless-ness stolen they should encrypt it better / at all
i’ll tell you what’s unethical: working for an internet service provider and selling the information of which apartment building dwellers own laptop computers to groups of thieves who then go on to stage elaborate reconnaissance missions whose findings directly result in dozens of stolen computers. it happens.
Just as information wants to be free, the means of information wants to be free (the internet), the means of the means wants to be free (money), and the means of the means of the means (paper), ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” of the means (wood), then trees, then nature / life… I mean, obviously you should do it! All the time, even when you don’t have to…
Are you content sacrificing a greater connection
a) to humanity
b) to nature and all life
c) to illegally downloaded music
to make sure your neighbor has a little less lag while they’re playing Xbox?
You guys: I dunno what I’m talking about.
Until ISP’s start charging by bandwidth used instead of a flat monthly fee, it is perfectly ethical…
…
(insomuch as you’re acting only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law).
categorical ISPerative
I bike to the library. Check out two Chinquee books. Go outside and my bike is stolen.
Walking home, I see my bike on your front porch.
I knock.
Me: “Hey. You stole my bike.”
You: “What?! It didn’t have a lock. You wanted me to steal it, dumb-ass!”
I walk home.
I’m not sure myself.
Does it cause lag to others? I guess that would factor in.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done it. Just felt odd.
Would I do it if it identified me while doing so?
Hmm
nice
I’m gonna say it’s okay as long as it’s not your primary access point.
This article is sort of old now, but if you’re interested in this, Bruce Schneier’s essay from Wired is a good place to start: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html (the summary is he supports open networks and the use of them)
your analogy is flawed unless the bike can be ridden everywhere at once by multiple people.
the limit of the bike is not the seat.
Who would pay for the open network?
taxes?
I’d like to see universal, beamed down from satellites.
the library aspect of your original analogy makes more sense.
you don’t mind reading books paid for by others.
why?
because it is viewed as positive within the ethics of the community.
logical? yes. ethical? no. do i do it? absolutely.
A privately paid-for internet service, for one owner, is like the library?
You lost me there.
Aren’t libraries funded by my very own tax money?
Don’t they have limits on how I borrow and fines?
Don’t they have opening and closing times?
Also, don’t they record ME taking the book?
I don’t get the analogy
I do it all the time. Probably not.
the library is an access point to information, just as an open wireless access point is.
the difference is the library is touted as “free” to the people but comes with restrictions–you must adhere to their rule set.
while an open node is simply an open node. it is your decision to cover the walls with beautiful objects, write your name on the floor in shit, or simply leave it as is.
only when you start giving something ethics do you find dilemma.
so you are saying you would be okay with sharing internet as long as you adhered to the rules of some faceless “person”.
that’s what i am getting from our discussion.
interesting.
so yeah i guess if you are going to affix ethics here, you are a burden in both scenarios: the library or the wireless access point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOdNc_seyM
mindy kaling’s first bit is about filesharing, apropos & amazing
depends on what you’re using it for. checking gmail, no. tweeting, yes
fuck your morality.
If someone leaves their wireless unprotected that’s kind of their problem, isn’t it?
if people don’t want their wireless-ness stolen they should encrypt it better / at all
i’ll tell you what’s unethical: working for an internet service provider and selling the information of which apartment building dwellers own laptop computers to groups of thieves who then go on to stage elaborate reconnaissance missions whose findings directly result in dozens of stolen computers. it happens.
How are you getting that result?
Probably because chat/comments are an ineffective mode of communication.
Anywho.
(This written on a coffee shop
s wireless)
Just as information wants to be free, the means of information wants to be free (the internet), the means of the means wants to be free (money), and the means of the means of the means (paper), ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” of the means (wood), then trees, then nature / life… I mean, obviously you should do it! All the time, even when you don’t have to…
Are you content sacrificing a greater connection
a) to humanity
b) to nature and all life
c) to illegally downloaded music
to make sure your neighbor has a little less lag while they’re playing Xbox?
You guys: I dunno what I’m talking about.
Until ISP’s start charging by bandwidth used instead of a flat monthly fee, it is perfectly ethical…
…
(insomuch as you’re acting only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law).
categorical ISPerative
you know telekinesis?
I bike to the library. Check out two Chinquee books. Go outside and my bike is stolen.
Walking home, I see my bike on your front porch.
I knock.
Me: “Hey. You stole my bike.”
You: “What?! It didn’t have a lock. You wanted me to steal it, dumb-ass!”
I walk home.
I’m not sure myself.
Does it cause lag to others? I guess that would factor in.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done it. Just felt odd.
Would I do it if it identified me while doing so?
Hmm
what are grammar
nice
just so you guys/gals/gender-neutral-plural know, if i am on the same open wireless network as you, i see every username and password and email and facebook message you send.
is it ethical to look? is it ethical for me to change your facebook status to “SMOKE WEED EVERY DAY”?
hard questions
I’m gonna say it’s okay as long as it’s not your primary access point.
This article is sort of old now, but if you’re interested in this, Bruce Schneier’s essay from Wired is a good place to start: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html (the summary is he supports open networks and the use of them)
I hope so!
wired ran an issue several months called “the rules”. One of them was not wearing a bluetooth headset. The other was locking your network. The logic being, one day youll be out and about and need someone’s unlocked network. Oh, and otherwise youre a dick.
your analogy is flawed unless the bike can be ridden everywhere at once by multiple people.
the limit of the bike is not the seat.
I dont’ really view it as unethical since, as noted above, you don’t pay by bandwidth and leeching someone’s wireless doesn’t really impact them much. I try to never like download music or watch movies or do anything very bandwidth intensive. But if you are just checking your email or facebook, it probably doesn’t impact the other person at all.
you can change my status to that. i think it would be really funny.
Who would pay for the open network?
taxes?
I’d like to see universal, beamed down from satellites.
the library aspect of your original analogy makes more sense.
you don’t mind reading books paid for by others.
why?
because it is viewed as positive within the ethics of the community.
suddenly, I like you
logical? yes. ethical? no. do i do it? absolutely.
A privately paid-for internet service, for one owner, is like the library?
You lost me there.
Aren’t libraries funded by my very own tax money?
Don’t they have limits on how I borrow and fines?
Don’t they have opening and closing times?
Also, don’t they record ME taking the book?
I don’t get the analogy
the library is an access point to information, just as an open wireless access point is.
the difference is the library is touted as “free” to the people but comes with restrictions–you must adhere to their rule set.
while an open node is simply an open node. it is your decision to cover the walls with beautiful objects, write your name on the floor in shit, or simply leave it as is.
only when you start giving something ethics do you find dilemma.
so you are saying you would be okay with sharing internet as long as you adhered to the rules of some faceless “person”.
that’s what i am getting from our discussion.
interesting.
so yeah i guess if you are going to affix ethics here, you are a burden in both scenarios: the library or the wireless access point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOdNc_seyM
mindy kaling’s first bit is about filesharing, apropos & amazing
How are you getting that result?
Probably because chat/comments are an ineffective mode of communication.
Anywho.
(This written on a coffee shop
s wireless)
you know telekinesis?
what are grammar
just so you guys/gals/gender-neutral-plural know, if i am on the same open wireless network as you, i see every username and password and email and facebook message you send.
is it ethical to look? is it ethical for me to change your facebook status to “SMOKE WEED EVERY DAY”?
hard questions
I hope so!
wired ran an issue several months called “the rules”. One of them was not wearing a bluetooth headset. The other was locking your network. The logic being, one day youll be out and about and need someone’s unlocked network. Oh, and otherwise youre a dick.
I dont’ really view it as unethical since, as noted above, you don’t pay by bandwidth and leeching someone’s wireless doesn’t really impact them much. I try to never like download music or watch movies or do anything very bandwidth intensive. But if you are just checking your email or facebook, it probably doesn’t impact the other person at all.
you can change my status to that. i think it would be really funny.
suddenly, I like you
If people didn’t want their blanks blanked, they should blank.
If people didn’t want their blanks blanked, they should blank.
If in need, go to your local McDonalds. There is free internet and no on will get mad if you don’t buy anything; they don’t seem to care. You will be the only one on a computer, so you don’t need to worry about bandwidth. Also, you can treat yourself to a snack-size McFlurry.
If in need, go to your local McDonalds. There is free internet and no on will get mad if you don’t buy anything; they don’t seem to care. You will be the only one on a computer, so you don’t need to worry about bandwidth. Also, you can treat yourself to a snack-size McFlurry.