A Thread About The Legality of Using Others Bandwidth- Renamed From the Original

[Niteshade]

:  Is there a "Shake your head in disbelief" epicon?

The owner of the router should be smart enough to DISALLOW permission to their router when they purchase and activate it (properly).  They should PASSWORD protect their router and/or modem.  If they want, they then give permission to access that router, to whomever they please.

There are already cases of Child Porn that have been laid against people who have left their wireless routers unsecured.  Of course some of those charges were dropped after a proper investigation and their computers were found to be 'clean', but it is an example of what can be done.  Right now, someone could be surfing Kiddie Porn on your UNSECURED router, and all traces will come back to you.  So, YES the owner of a properly secured router does have the rights to control access to their router, and allow or disallow permissions to use it.  They are the ones paying for it financially and legally.  

If there was an emoticon I would be using it too.

How far into the outfield do you want to go? Back to the topic: The discussion here is the legality of using someone's broadband without permission. The answer (by many) is that it is illegal/wrong.

We are all aware of the possibilities of someone highjacking a connection: kiddie porn/illegal acts etc. This does not change the fact that the person hijacking is doing so without permission.

Nites

PS we are beating this to death. It is illegal to hijack. It is also COMMON SENSE to protect yourself by securing your router.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Edward, you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth each month....that is yours, and if you want more you must pay for it.

Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits", and someone below you downloads the whole thing, leaving your monthly allotment at zero, and now you are left with the option of buying more bandwidth or not using the internet you have paid for. Its theft......

Its not the Radio-frequency thingy that is the problem, its the fact you are stealing something [BANDWIDTH} that is legally paid for, and also finite,in that it must be replenished at a cost to you.

Sorry, but your friends are looking at a bigger picture [ the RECEPTION of said radio frequencies and what that entails] than what this thread has devolved into.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

. It is also COMMON SENSE to protect yourself by securing your router.

Yup, except the last time I spent 2 hours on the phone with the *cough* service personal, the only solution they found to make my system work was to drop ALL the encryption codes.

Just waiting for enough free time to finish connecting the 'hard wire' I did when I renovated earlier.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The law belongs to the people, through their legislators, judges and lawyers; they, not policemen, decide what is and is not 'lawful.'

In that nice little sphere you live and work in maybe......in the real world bean counters do.

 

[muffin]

Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits",  :blotto:

:rofl:

Wow Mr. Monkhouse, I do believe you made my morning.... hahaha

 

[muffin]

You're awesome anyway!!

Did you know that I've now logged in to DNDLearn 3 times in the past week ... and I haven't gotten "revoked" yet!!

I'm only keeping a grip on myself this time to save you all that work that I usually create for you!  ;D

(And so that you can spend more time online here ... Mr Bobbitt should buy me a beer for that ...  >)

HAHA ... that's true I haven't seen your name fly by my desk this term... yet he he

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Now say a new porn box set comes out, "Monk Brucehouse's Greatest Clits",

You sir owe me a new laptop

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sorry, I hate to keep at this, but ...

Regarding wireless routers: they use spectrum (at 2.4 and 5 GHz) that is licence exempt – the spectrum, and its use and its users are not protected by any ‘rights’ – no individual (save, perhaps the Queen) has ‘property’ that can be stolen or, even, trespassed upon.

The whole purpose of a growing trend to allocate spectrum on a licence exempt basis is to allow technology (which really means user demand), not government regulation to rule the spectrum - any technology, not just the ones mandated (picked) by bureaucrats.

Thus far the spectrum management debate has paralleled the debate over land rights. Exclusivity (a spectrum allocation term) = a right of use by a group; allotment (another specialized spectrum management term) = a zoning bylaw (this bit is ‘residential,’ that bit is ‘industrial’ and so on) and an assignment (yet another special term) or licence = lease. But “ownership” is always and without fail vested in the public at large. Radio users – the CBC, Bell, you with your wireless router – all use OUR spectrum – yours and mine. It belongs to us all because, by treaty the RF spectrum is part of each nation’s sovereign patrimony. So, despite lawyers, spectrum management is most closely related to the traditional problem on managing the “commons” and it is fraught with all the same difficulties. Historically we have understood that the best way to manage the “commons” - to avoid the economic, politial and social dilemma described by Hardin in The Tragedy of the Commons - is to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of governments and their agents. The 'people' tend to be best able to manage the commons, the Crown tends to be a poor manager of the 'common good.'

The problem is difficult: see e.g. McFadden n the ‘digital commons,’ but not impossible. One thing about which I am certain, however, is that the roles of lawyers and policemen will decline, precipitously as the digital radio ‘commons’ emerges.

IF this was a simple, clear-cut legal issue there would be easy answers, validated in courts; there are no easy, legally sufficient answers because the issue is not simple and clear-cut; I think issues that are neither simple nor clear-cut are called grey areas - at least they were when I went to school.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I guess anyone can steal my car if I park on Parlament Hill then..........

Sorry Edward, I don't but the "licence exempt" theory you use, recieve my signal all you want, just don't intrude into it and steal.

If I set my wallet down on the 'Queens' sidewalk and you take it that is the same as taking it if I set it on "my property" and you took it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, again.

Your car is not a useful analogy; it is not even remotely related to the issue of wireless routers.

Your sidewalk, on the other hand, is comparable. It IS your sidewalk because you paid for it through your municipal taxes and (by way of grants and transfers) through your provincial and federal taxes. You own the sidewalks in just about the same way you own the spectrum. I don't need a licence to use 'your' sidewalk, it is part of the "commons." I do not need a licence to use licence exempt spectrum, either - even if it is passing through someone else's router. If that person encodes their signal then I would be breaking a law: no question. But that is not, in any way, related to 'piggybacking' on a 'clear' (not encoded) signal.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[Michael OLeary]

But the issue here is not the fundamental use of the "spectrum".

The issue is that the owner of the internet account and the router has entered into a legal contract to consume a defined quantity of internet access, whether that be measured in bandwidth or gigabytes (usage caps are becoming more common and will likely soon be the norm).  The user establishes this contract based upon their personal use expectations.  He/she agrees to accept extras charges if that contracted usage is exceeded, and most consumers will choose a contract to avoid extras charges.

When someone else acquires their signal, even if that slice of the spectrum is "freely" accessible, they are using it to take/use/acquire/steal part or all of the contracted portion of internet access purchased by the owner of the router.  Their piracy may cause the application of additional charges to the owner of the router, and therefore have not simply used a "free" resource.  They have stolen from the owner.

"Maybe the owner of the router deliberately left it open so others can use it for free".

Just because I leave my door unlocked doesn't mean you're allowed to come sit in my house, just because "maybe" I left it open for anyone to do so.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
The issue is that the owner of the internet account and the router has entered into a legal contract to consume a defined quantity of internet access, whether that be measured in bandwidth or gigabytes (usage caps are becoming more common and will likely soon be the norm).  The user establishes this contract based upon their personal use expectations.  He/she agrees to accept extras charges if that contracted usage is exceeded, and most consumers will choose a contract to avoid extras charges.
...

And IF that is the issue (and I agree it is an issue) then the Internet account holder has recourse, at law, to getting the 'squatter' to pay a share. But squatters have been hard to manage in well established legal areas, like property - how will or can they be managed in the spectrum.

It is still a grey area.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The enforcement is a grey area, the legal right to use of the contracted resource is not.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No, again.

Your car is not a useful analogy; it is not even remotely related to the issue of wireless routers.

Your sidewalk, on the other hand, is comparable. It IS your sidewalk because you paid for it through your municipal taxes and (by way of grants and transfers) through your provincial and federal taxes. You own the sidewalks in just about the same way you own the spectrum. I don't need a licence to use 'your' sidewalk, it is part of the "commons." I do not need a licence to use licence exempt spectrum, either - even if it is passing through someone else's router. If that person encodes their signal then I would be breaking a law: no question. But that is not, in any way, related to 'piggybacking' on a 'clear' (not encoded) signal.

You're grasping at straws.

Correct, you don't need a licence to pass on "my" sidewalk, but if you commit a crime while on 'my' sidewalk it is still a crime............

When you "piggyback" on someones router you convert something, again BANDWIDTH, from another person to yourself.
Theft.  Same as if you did it on the sidewalk.       

My argument had NOTHING to do with the radio freqency dilema, it is the entering [if you will] of that freqency and using MY BANDWIDTH that comes from a land line into my house.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

It's a case of taking something invisible, that roams freely through the air and when the situations present themselves one can translate that signal via lawfull and freely available means. I have a usb ethernet card, i can search the area for availble networks, and should i locate any attemt to link up. If a network is "open" for free unpassworded access then i am merely making use of what's freely availble by no malicious means. If you wish to prevent the unmalicious freeloading then PASSWORD IT, or make it a private network. But don't call me a criminal for something that IS avaialble for free by way of buying and using legal hardware.

Do not put your bandwidth in my living room for the taking.

Like a radio, don't want anyone to hear what your listening to, plug in your headphones.  Feel like sharing then turn it up and please for gods sake put it on classic rock.

Cheers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not even close...............read the last 2 pages and catch up please.


EDIT:...now try recording that "noise" and then start selling it and see what happens.

 

[George Wallace]

Like listening to a radio, turn it up loud and everyone can hear, are they stealing your radio or the noise coming out of your speakers? NOOOO

Broadcasting your bandwidth to the public is the same thing, open freely accessable without a

OK.  So I'm listening to your radio.  Did I give you any money to purchase that radio?  Did I give you any money to power that radio (Batteries or Hydro)?  Did I give you any money to maintain that Radio?  Nope.  You paid for everything out of your pocket.  Thanks.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The enforcement is a grey area, the legal right to use of the contracted resource is not.

And that (like Bruce's comment that follows) is a good point, BUT it is a civil, contractual matter.

Garb811 said it was a Criminal Offence and muffin pointed to a section of the Criminal Code which supports that contention.

I disagree - Criminal Code provisions notwithstanding. I agree with Snafu-Bar that it is a grey area. Bruce, signing as staff, chastised Snafu-Bar for that opinion. I think Bruce and others have a defensible position - but not one that is legally settled.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And that (like Bruce's comment that follows) is a good point, BUT it is a civil, contractual matter.

Did someone say straw??     
Just because I enter a contract with a third party to buy something from them does not make it fair game for others to use.

Wow.

EDIT: and Edward, just because something isn't enforced does NOT make it grey. Have you ever drove past a policeman with a radar gun knowing you were over the speed limit but he/she didn't stop you as he/she was waiting for the "big fish"?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Maybe this should go to Radio Chatter?