Perception. What you see as theft of resources can be seen as paid for services (i.e. no theft occured).
Granted opening a WiFi connection could result in more bandwidth being used, but only the bandwidth that has already been paid for and rate limited anyways. For instance, I *know* what my maximum up/download speeds are. I *know* I cannot exceed those. I also know this is a more or less arbitrary limit set by the ISP. In other words, I can't use more maximum bandwidth than I'm allowed. As for overall volume, I know a lot of people who hit that volume limit (i.e. 50 GB per month) easily just playing games or downloading TV Shows (ignoring any legality issues in doing so, for now). What I'm perceiving from your stance is that you have adopted the same view that the music/movie industry, and even the commercial software industry would have us believe - that is they had an idea, and we the unwashed masses must pay for that idea ad infinitum. Can you tell me how using an internet connection - that is already paid for - is theft? Assuming of course that the person providing the open WiFi had the right to do so? (not in conflict with their acceptable use policies...) The only argument that I can see here is that each "freeloader" *could* be deemed a lost customer for the ISP. But in reality that would be a very small percentage I think. For instance, how often do we ourselves go to a CLUG meeting, connect to a WiFi hotspot and surf the web? Are we not stealing bandwidth from DeVry then? (using your arguments) - or even DeVry's ISP? (btw, DeVry has blessed the use of their bandwidth like this). But we are not a lost customer - we are only transient visitors to a location, looking for an Internet connection. Take the argument even further, what if instead of an Open WiFi connection, someone just wired up a switch in their front yard and invited the public to plug in as needed. How is that any different than the WiFi approach? How is that theft when you are only providing a connection to your network - which in itself still has a maximum capacity on the Internet connection? To put it very simply, why is it illegal to share something I've paid for? The real answer is "consult a lawyer". (apologies if I seem confrontational, I'm not trying to be. Just challenging your view - in hopes that I see flaws in mine, or we just come to a realization that we see things differently.) Shawn Gary Z. (If forwarding, PLEASE delete address from body of e-mail!) wrote: > I hope those in the discussion yesterday also subscribe to clug-talk. I > could not, in all conscience, continue the discussion there. It was the > wrong group for it. > > In the light of a new day I re-read the Wired article by Schneier, i.e. > > http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0110 > > He gives a whole host of reasons to open up your WiFi. He is more > concerned by computer security, by illicit use of the connection coming > home to haunt him and by those 'stealing' (if that's not a laugh, I > don't know what is) too much bandwidth but he is not at all concerned > with theft from the ISP and possible degradation of services to other > (paying) subscribers on his node. He even has the gall to say: > > /The RIAA has conducted about //26,000 lawsuits/ > <http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/02/Business/Minn_woman_takes_on_r.shtml>/, > and there are more than //15 million music downloaders/ > <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_0703141.html>/. Mark Mulligan > of Jupiter Research //said it best/ > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/22/musicnews.newmedia>/: > "If you're a file sharer, you know that the likelihood of you being > caught is very similar to that of being hit by an asteroid." / > > In other words, go right ahead and do something criminal and unethical > because your chance of getting caught has a probablility approaching zero. > > Great moral suasion, man. And this in what is supposedly considered a > leading magazine. > > BUT, and this is why I am sending off this response, this time I read > the comments following his article. > > NO ONE, not a soul, mentioned anything about the ethics of stealing > resources/services. The Robin Hood Syndrome was in full effect. It is > extremely unsettling and morally repulsive that the readers of Wired > that chose to comment were UNIVERSALLY OK with theft. True, they were > concerned with illicit use of their IP (but not illicit theft) and too > much of their monthly allotment taken, but they could not see that they > were advocating crime if it hit them in the face. > > What does that say about the ethical standards of today's Internet savvy? > > Now admittedly, it is dangerous to use this small cross-section to > generalize to a whole generation, but there was NOT A SINGLE comment in > three pages that addressed theft of resources. Surely this paints some > kind of a picture, doesn't it? > > Gary > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
