An unattended, unlocked idling car is illegal everywhere I've checked the laws.
Cool, leaving the car primed for theft is illegal. How about actually stealing it? Any laws on that?
Also, the cars do not advertise.
Why does it always seem to come to this? Yes, the wireless AP advertises it presence by broadcasting an "I'm Here" message, but that doesn't imply that usage is OK.
driving off in a car that is running with the door open and a sign in it saying "please drive me"? Of course, the owner didn't directly talk to you, but you do have permission to be driving it, right? He even got it ready for you, warming it up and opening the door. So is it theft to take it?
Theft? I don't know. I was talking about right vs. wrong. If you don't have or don't know if you have permission from the owner then taking it is wrong. Legality would depend on if you could prove you had permission. See, not the same thing.
Why is everyone bent on confusing legal/illegal with right/wrong.
I said legality, the original question was legality, and legality is fact, not some relative personal decision or code of beliefs.
You're correct here, legality is not a relative personal decision, it's an arbitrary codification of morality. My very first post was in response to the following statement: If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied... I replied that using something that wasn't yours is wrong. How is that not true? You asked about legality and I replied that regardless, it would still be wrong. How is that not true?
The concepts of legality and morality do not necessarily align. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, but I stand by the contention that morality is ultimately more important than legality. If you disagree, please describe how is this not true.
Regardless of what you may think is moral, someone else may think something entirely different and be completely moral within their own set of beliefs.
You're discussing personal and/or cultural morality. I'm talking about intrinsic or absolute morality. Some things are, in and of themselves, right or wrong and not subject to the whims of personal belief -- even if you don't actually believe this, it's true.
This was my "original" premise so many posts ago: That regardless of any legality, stealing, borrowing, using something that's not yours is wrong. Notice I didn't say "illegal", but wrong. If stealing being right or wrong is only part of a personal belief system, and not an absolute, please describe when stealing is right and what culture considers it so. Is rape right or wrong? If just part of a personal belief system, there must be some circumstance where it's right. Please describe this situation.
I know exactly what I believe and what I would do, and that has never once been the point in these discussions.
Yes, apparently, you would steal someone's "un-used" bandwitch if you were reasonably sure a lawyer could get you off or that it wasn't "illegal".
or is this a situation where it's right to make fun of someone after you've spent three posts making an ass out of yourself?
After three posts, I believe that a little humor was warranted. I wasn't making fun of you, but something you wrote (and I included an apology). I'm certain my arguments and illustrations have been entirely rational and consistent. Upon review, I'm sure you'll see that the "ass" may be viewed in your bathroom mirror.
Judging from this thread, it's clear that many people do in fact feel that it's ok for strangers to use their access-point.
Actually, no. The thread is that many people feel it's OK for them to use someone else's access-point without permission, or with "implied" permission, simply because the access-point is unsecured.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours...
Well, the air would be mine if I had paid for it, like my unused bandwidth.
Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
The moral compass allusion is perfectly appropriate here. This has nothing to do with church, or what I personally feel or believe. Some things are intrinsically right or wrong and arguing that they are not is moral relativism or wishful thinking.
You've posted no research thus far, and backed up none of your claims. Taking an ethics class (or classes, or having a degree) doesn't mean you're an expert in the legality of this issue.
I don't need any of that as this is really a matter of simple morality not legality.
I understand private property just fine... since I am using services that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to... could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
Doesn't matter if it's illegal, it's still wrong -- and you sound like you apparently know that. "Expert" analysis is not required. As I've said before, the world would be a better place if people did what is right, rather than what they can get away with. Requiring a lawyer and/or judge in this matter would be an indication of the latter.
Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal. Using something (abstract or concrete) that is not yours, without permission, even if it doesn't harm or deprive the owner of anything, is wrong. To argue this point further implies that you don't really get that.
I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old...
Perhaps when you turn 11, we can discuss this further, and get you a pony. (I'm sooo sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
Your assumptions have gone from defensive to ridiculous.
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be defensive, but I don't really think they're that ridiculous.
I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws
If all we are taking about is whether receiving / listening to your neighbor's signal is a violation, then I don't think we have a problem. The problem is the other way around.
To "make use" of that signal, you have to send another signal that then (and here's the problem) gets processed by and uses your neighbor's physical hardware and network connection. Unless you have permission, you are violating his private property and/or purchased services at this point.
I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
To be snarky... I have done some research, have taken Ethics classes, and have just clarified the point about private property -- which should already be clear to people and should have been taught to them by their parents, but are and were obviously not.
I did not, repeat not, mean to attack you. I'm just annoyed at the logic people try to use to rationalize this sort of activity -- kind of like IP and Copyright violations, but that's another thread:-)
...if one has not received express permission to use services paid for or otherwise possessed by another, then the use of those services is wrong both legally and morally...
You're missing the point. There are valid physical analogies, be they abstractly applied. Yes, your signal has left your property and not protected as a physical item. If all you did was listen, there'd be no problem.
The problem is your signal, accessing/invading my network gear, using my physical hardware and broadband connection. The gateway may be open, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to send whatever you want through it.
Are you allowed to fire projectiles into my house, through my open front door? I didn't think so.
I believe the question really centers more around whether or not a broadcasting wireless signal can be considered private property -- especially since my use of it does not necessarily preclude your use of it.
This last bit (bold) is a bit of or moral relativism -- sharing something without permission would be OK. Would it be OK to use your neighbor's lawnmower without permission when he's away on vacation? Didn't preclude his use of it... You say he couldn't have used it then anyway? How about swimming in his pool without asking? Doesn't preclude his (concurrent) use...
Not to be snarky, but haven't any of you people taken an Ethics class?
A car left idling with the door open may tempt people to come in, but it doesn't invite people in. There's a difference.
Not really. The wireless broadcast simply says, "I'm here" to other wireless equipment (in a way humans cannot detect directly) and your computer translates that for you. I'm pretty sure most of us can detect an idling car, with the door open, unassisted.
In neither case do we have to make use of the object. In one case, sending our own signal to access your neighbor's network and the physical objects that enabling it, the other climbing in and enjoying the rich Corinthian Leather.
I believe the question really centers more around whether or not a broadcasting wireless signal can be considered private property...
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's signal, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
Receivers are, generally, unregulated due to the nature of a broadcast signal, transmitters are not.
Simplying listening to your neighbor's unencrypted / unprotected signal is OK. Transmitting your own signal with the intent of accessing/invading your neighbors network and utilizing his equipment without his knowledge and permission is not OK.
As I said, I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's transmissions, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
If your neighbor left his bicycle on your (or public) property, it's OK for you to use it? If you accidentally dropped your wallet (anywhere), it's OK for me to keep it?
I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied...
Let me re-phrase this to make the absurdity of your statement clear:
If your bicycle, car, home, or bank account is unsecured, permission to use it is implied...
Using something that is not yours, without the permission of the owner, is wrong - period.
Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs
on
The Hybrid Scooter
·
· Score: 1
You'll see that in this study the amount of deaths of the primary driver per million sold is higher in SUV's than large cars, midsize cars, minivans and imported luxury cars. Compact & subcompact are worse for the primary driver - obviously tin cans with a motor don't handle accidents well! Pickup trucks are the second worst and I'm suprised they're not more similar to SUV's.
Most SUVs are built on truck frames and are basically trucks with more interior space, etc... These studies don't consider smaller, cross-over SUVs like the Honda CRV, which are more similar to cars in their construction (and have higher safety ratings).
As far as efficiency, many SUVs and minivans are quite similar according to fueleconomy.gov and I'm always annoyed when people bash SUVs and ignore minivans.
Or perhaps you are for the "People of Earth". How touching! Except how can you declare an allegance with every single person on earth, some of which may not want you to exist.
Appears to be a giant dating site for people who think quoting 'meaningful' song lyrics on their web page makes them deep.
It's worse than you think. It seems to consist of posers who think that having 1145 "friends" (including famous people) and a virtually unreadable page makes them cool. Friend comments are mostly "thanks for the add", "have a nice weekend", and "U R SXY - LOL"... sigh. Many of the photos are soft-p0rn. I guess they're meant to attract, but would *you* date someone who posted that to the world?
Note to the guys: Those pictures of you and your abs aren't really going to attract your target audience. I hope you're comfortable with your sexuality:-) In addition, having a screen name of "The Hose" (yes, there are 10 of them) is NOT a good thing -- especially when you look like a moron.
Sorry. MySpace could be cool, but generally isn't. What a waste.
The common wood frog displays a rare trait called freeze tolerance. When the mercury falls, the animal becomes, to the eye and touch, a frog- shaped ice cube. The way it does this may eventually be copied to aid human organ transplants.
In reality, the frog's metabolism slows to a crawl, and its body temperature drops to between 21 and 30 Fahrenheit (-6 and -1 Celsius). The amphibian's heart and brain cease to function.
Since announcing their experiment, the designers Varun Sahni and Yuri Shtanov have been barraged with crank phone calls asking if they have, "Prince Albert's solar system in a can"? They are reportedly unamused.
I don't know if this is a driver for the Net Neutrality opponents, but I heard mention on NPR about people who want to trade bandwidth as a commodity, like energy and water. This type of trading was popular with Ken Lay and ENRON and is still a popular idea amongst his peers.
Bandwidth commodity trading--or the trading of financial instruments that allow carriers to hedge against future dips or upswings in the price of bandwidth through forward-selling and forward-buying--is indeed stalled...
There's no underlying physical delivery model with integrity upon which contracts can be based...
Carriers... are wary of taking financial responsibility if they can't deliver the bandwidth goods on time to customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, leaving the car primed for theft is illegal. How about actually stealing it? Any laws on that?
Also, the cars do not advertise.
Why does it always seem to come to this? Yes, the wireless AP advertises it presence by broadcasting an "I'm Here" message, but that doesn't imply that usage is OK.
driving off in a car that is running with the door open and a sign in it saying "please drive me"? Of course, the owner didn't directly talk to you, but you do have permission to be driving it, right? He even got it ready for you, warming it up and opening the door. So is it theft to take it?
Theft? I don't know. I was talking about right vs. wrong. If you don't have or don't know if you have permission from the owner then taking it is wrong. Legality would depend on if you could prove you had permission. See, not the same thing.
Why is everyone bent on confusing legal/illegal with right/wrong.
You're correct here, legality is not a relative personal decision, it's an arbitrary codification of morality. My very first post was in response to the following statement: If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied... I replied that using something that wasn't yours is wrong. How is that not true? You asked about legality and I replied that regardless, it would still be wrong. How is that not true?
The concepts of legality and morality do not necessarily align. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, but I stand by the contention that morality is ultimately more important than legality. If you disagree, please describe how is this not true.
Regardless of what you may think is moral, someone else may think something entirely different and be completely moral within their own set of beliefs.
You're discussing personal and/or cultural morality. I'm talking about intrinsic or absolute morality. Some things are, in and of themselves, right or wrong and not subject to the whims of personal belief -- even if you don't actually believe this, it's true.
This was my "original" premise so many posts ago: That regardless of any legality, stealing, borrowing, using something that's not yours is wrong. Notice I didn't say "illegal", but wrong. If stealing being right or wrong is only part of a personal belief system, and not an absolute, please describe when stealing is right and what culture considers it so. Is rape right or wrong? If just part of a personal belief system, there must be some circumstance where it's right. Please describe this situation.
I know exactly what I believe and what I would do, and that has never once been the point in these discussions.
Yes, apparently, you would steal someone's "un-used" bandwitch if you were reasonably sure a lawyer could get you off or that it wasn't "illegal".
or is this a situation where it's right to make fun of someone after you've spent three posts making an ass out of yourself?
After three posts, I believe that a little humor was warranted. I wasn't making fun of you, but something you wrote (and I included an apology). I'm certain my arguments and illustrations have been entirely rational and consistent. Upon review, I'm sure you'll see that the "ass" may be viewed in your bathroom mirror.
Good evening.
Actually, no. The thread is that many people feel it's OK for them to use someone else's access-point without permission, or with "implied" permission, simply because the access-point is unsecured.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours...
Well, the air would be mine if I had paid for it, like my unused bandwidth.
Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
The moral compass allusion is perfectly appropriate here. This has nothing to do with church, or what I personally feel or believe. Some things are intrinsically right or wrong and arguing that they are not is moral relativism or wishful thinking.
I don't need any of that as this is really a matter of simple morality not legality.
I understand private property just fine... since I am using services that you may have not wanted me to use, but unwittingly allowed me to... could a lawyer potentially argue this point well enough for a judge or jury to agree that it's not a violation of private property? That's where I'm looking for expert analysis.
Doesn't matter if it's illegal, it's still wrong -- and you sound like you apparently know that. "Expert" analysis is not required. As I've said before, the world would be a better place if people did what is right, rather than what they can get away with. Requiring a lawyer and/or judge in this matter would be an indication of the latter.
Right and wrong are independent of legal and illegal. Using something (abstract or concrete) that is not yours, without permission, even if it doesn't harm or deprive the owner of anything, is wrong. To argue this point further implies that you don't really get that.
I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old ...
Perhaps when you turn 11, we can discuss this further, and get you a pony. (I'm sooo sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be defensive, but I don't really think they're that ridiculous.
I thought this topic had more to do with whether or not wireless signal and the use of said wireless signal could be considered violating private property laws
If all we are taking about is whether receiving / listening to your neighbor's signal is a violation, then I don't think we have a problem. The problem is the other way around.
To "make use" of that signal, you have to send another signal that then (and here's the problem) gets processed by and uses your neighbor's physical hardware and network connection. Unless you have permission, you are violating his private property and/or purchased services at this point.
I made the comment because I was interested in hearing from someone who might have done a bit of research on the topic and could offer some insight, not to be talked down to as if I were a ten year-old with chronic sticky fingers by someone who can't understand others wanting clarification on where the definition of private property lies in this subject.
To be snarky... I have done some research, have taken Ethics classes, and have just clarified the point about private property -- which should already be clear to people and should have been taught to them by their parents, but are and were obviously not.
I did not, repeat not, mean to attack you. I'm just annoyed at the logic people try to use to rationalize this sort of activity -- kind of like IP and Copyright violations, but that's another thread :-)
My point exactly. Nicely worded as well.
Thank you.
Finally... someone gets it. Thank you.
No let's talk IP and Copyright law ... :-)
The problem is your signal, accessing/invading my network gear, using my physical hardware and broadband connection. The gateway may be open, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to send whatever you want through it.
Are you allowed to fire projectiles into my house, through my open front door? I didn't think so.
This last bit (bold) is a bit of or moral relativism -- sharing something without permission would be OK. Would it be OK to use your neighbor's lawnmower without permission when he's away on vacation? Didn't preclude his use of it... You say he couldn't have used it then anyway? How about swimming in his pool without asking? Doesn't preclude his (concurrent) use...
Not to be snarky, but haven't any of you people taken an Ethics class?
Not really. The wireless broadcast simply says, "I'm here" to other wireless equipment (in a way humans cannot detect directly) and your computer translates that for you. I'm pretty sure most of us can detect an idling car, with the door open, unassisted.
In neither case do we have to make use of the object. In one case, sending our own signal to access your neighbor's network and the physical objects that enabling it, the other climbing in and enjoying the rich Corinthian Leather.
It's ultimately a questions of morality.
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's signal, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
Receivers are, generally, unregulated due to the nature of a broadcast signal, transmitters are not.
Simplying listening to your neighbor's unencrypted / unprotected signal is OK. Transmitting your own signal with the intent of accessing/invading your neighbors network and utilizing his equipment without his knowledge and permission is not OK.
As I said, I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
So, you contend that you're only using your neighbor's transmissions, not transmitting your own signal, not also using the wiring inside his house, his network gear, his phone/cable connection?
If your neighbor left his bicycle on your (or public) property, it's OK for you to use it? If you accidentally dropped your wallet (anywhere), it's OK for me to keep it?
I think the world would be a better place if people did what was right, rather than what they can get away with.
A car left idling with the door open advertises itself. Stealing it would still be wrong. I'm sorry, but your moral compass is flawed.
Let me re-phrase this to make the absurdity of your statement clear:
Using something that is not yours, without the permission of the owner, is wrong - period.Most SUVs are built on truck frames and are basically trucks with more interior space, etc... These studies don't consider smaller, cross-over SUVs like the Honda CRV, which are more similar to cars in their construction (and have higher safety ratings).
As far as efficiency, many SUVs and minivans are quite similar according to fueleconomy.gov and I'm always annoyed when people bash SUVs and ignore minivans.
You obviously don't have a MySpace account...
I believe the phrase is comfy chair. :-)
Actually, fear of snakes lead to the development of the airplane, so we could avoid running into them on cross-country trips. Wait... Damn!
This will definitely help keep your dog from being left inside a patient...
Doctor: Dog?
Nurse: Check.
Don't forget Sigourney Weaver as the Planet Express Ship! She was wonderful.
It's worse than you think. It seems to consist of posers who think that having 1145 "friends" (including famous people) and a virtually unreadable page makes them cool. Friend comments are mostly "thanks for the add", "have a nice weekend", and "U R SXY - LOL"... sigh. Many of the photos are soft-p0rn. I guess they're meant to attract, but would *you* date someone who posted that to the world?
Note to the guys: Those pictures of you and your abs aren't really going to attract your target audience. I hope you're comfortable with your sexuality :-) In addition, having a screen name of "The Hose" (yes, there are 10 of them) is NOT a good thing -- especially when you look like a moron.
Sorry. MySpace could be cool, but generally isn't. What a waste.
The common wood frog displays a rare trait called freeze tolerance. When the mercury falls, the animal becomes, to the eye and touch, a frog- shaped ice cube. The way it does this may eventually be copied to aid human organ transplants.
In reality, the frog's metabolism slows to a crawl, and its body temperature drops to between 21 and 30 Fahrenheit (-6 and -1 Celsius). The amphibian's heart and brain cease to function.
Since announcing their experiment, the designers Varun Sahni and Yuri Shtanov have been barraged with crank phone calls asking if they have, "Prince Albert's solar system in a can"? They are reportedly unamused.
Don't get me wrong, I love Milla Jovovich (see The Fifth Element), but man Ultraviolet was weak.