What would you do if you discovered you could piggyback on someone else's wireless network? Would you use it? Would you ask first? Here's how I'd solve these and other ethical dilemmas that Wi-Fi poses.You know you've hit the big time when your moral dilemmas start showing up in the "Ethicist" column in the New York Times.
In last Sunday's edition, a reader wrote to say she'd "accidentally discovered that the wireless Internet card in my laptop lets me access the Web in my apartment" via what is a neighbour's Wi-Fi connection. She went on to say she only used it to "check e-mail, which will not affect my neighbour's usage." She then asks whether what she's doing is wrong and whether she should offer to pay part of the monthly connect fee.
If you want to read the column, click here. The NYT wants you to register, but it's free.
Forgetting that the reader sounds too tech-savvy to be in a moral quandary over Napstering a little bandwidth, the NYT's arbiter-of-ethics essentially tells her to come clean about her usage--as long as she can identify who's sharing the wealth. If she can't (which is pretty likely), the NYT counsels her to go ahead and take a free ride--but not to overdo it.
I think the Times misses a crucial point here. For me the most important moral question isn't whether you should use your neighbour's bandwidth, but whether you should tell him that his network is wide open to everyone in a 150 foot radius--neighbours, kids parked outside, just anybody. And that some of those people may be prowling that unintentionally open network (and hard drive) for personal information--maybe even identity theft.
So the first thing a good neighbour would do is go over and tell the network's owner that you can access their network, then offer to turn on the basic WEP security. I'd then offer to make sure that the owner's PC has file sharing turned off (or that it's at least protected with a decent password).
As the Times points out, setting up any kind of formal sharing arrangement would violate most every DSL or cable modem user agreement in existence. While you probably wouldn't have the lawyers (or their process servers) knocking on your door, don't make the mistake of some who have actually advertised their open network node. Contractual wrongdoing is a definite no-no, and drawing attention to same--unless you have a powerful attorney, lots of bucks, and are trying to make some loony point about a "free Internet"--is just dumb.
Not that this is stopping some bandwidth rebels out there. Perhaps their contract disobedience will eventually result in loosened terms or "shareable" connections for "just a few dollars more each month" (as the ads might say). Maybe a few people will share their connections with lots of friends, and local providers won't be able to recoup their investment and will just go into another line of work.
More likely neither of those things will happen, and the quiet thievery will become an accepted part of life--sort of the way Microsoft Office used to be copied to every computer you owned, until Microsoft added an authorization code for every two copies and spoiled the fun. (Which they had every right to do and should serve as a reminder that someday all parties come to an end.)
What would I do?
I used to have two networks at my house, one open and the other password-protected. I'm not sure anyone besides me ever used the open network, though I told my neighbours they were welcome to try it out if they wanted to see how broadband worked.
I'd be fine with occasional use by outsiders, but would shut down the free connection if people started using it so much that they really should have gotten a connection of their own.
Take the woman who wrote to the Times. All she wanted to do was check e-mail. But what if she was checking work-related e-mail using the neighbour's shared connection? That to me is the perfect example of someone who ought to pay--after all they are getting paid to read the e-mail--rather than steal bandwidth.
I know others feel differently about this. But if you find an open network, consider that the person who owns it probably doesn't know it's open and offer to help close it for them. Open home networks are identity theft networks waiting to happen. And it doesn't take an Ethicist to figure out that one.
What do you think? Would you take a free ride on someone else's bandwidth? Would you ask first? TalkBack to us below!
2%
4%
I don't believe they put you in a position where people woudl actually read your half thought out answers. Anyway, my opinion aside. Two things shoudl happen in this case, adn the user already knows the answer to her question. She asked you because she is looking for somethign close to what she wants, so that she can feel good about her wrong-doing. Whatever your ag=rgument is abot the internet, the bottom line is this. That other person is PAYING for access. That means, if she is using said access without payign that person she is STEALING, plain and simple. There isno other argument to this. Agreements with the ISP aside. They might be breaking contractual agreements imposed by an entity who's sole purpose is survival in a capitalistic society, adn as such, optimal exploitation of customers whiel still keepign them happy is a must. Put that aaside for a sec. She is stealgin and knows she is. How you are in a position to write an articel for a respected publication, and sugar-coat the issue is beyond me. Is society that messed up, that now the peopel that have the RESPONSIBILITY to reply honorably because they are publicly called upon to do so have been corrupted as well. Come on man! Let me tell you what she should do, adn watch out, because I might come apply for your job... Here goes. She should go tell her neighbor that she has discovererd that the network is open, help to lock it down, adn if she a real trooper, admit to her theivery. I hear Australia is nice this time of year!