Is this wrong?

[Umbran]

It's all a matter of where you draw your own lines, according to your beliefs and preferences, which of course are born from your experiences.

Should you get caught, I'm pretty sure the courts aren't going to give a fig about where you draw your own lines.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but since in my personal belief system there's nothing wrong with it, I didn't feel I needed to follow common courtesy or the law," Yeah, that'll work

In the electronic world, people are pretty darned cavalier about the rights of others. They allow themselves great leeway in terms of what they feel "does little harm" to their victim - copy media, use their bandwidth, and so on. As if they figure the perpetrator is the one who gets to decide where the boundaries lie. Where on Earth do people get the idea that they get to decide when it is okay to use other people's property and resources? I expect the anonymity of the internet allows them to be callous, because they never see their victim's face.

Now, if you go to your neighbor and ask, "Dude, I noticed that your network is insecure. If I help you secure it, would you mind if I used it when my own line goes down," I'd say you were doing a good deed.

I'd like to see how many of you would react so nicely to someone finding your car unlocked, and taking it for a spin (well, they didn't use that much gas, so it was okay, right?). Unfortunately, how you say you'd react here doesn't count. That's theoretical, and may not accurately reflect what happens when you find someone else's burger wrappers on your passenger seat, or find someone else on your couch, flippingTV channels using your remote control (Well, it isn't like you were home, using your home and TV, right?)

 

[Aus_Snow]

Should you get caught, I'm pretty sure the courts aren't going to give a fig about where you draw your own lines.

As it happens, "should you get caught" does not reflect a real possibility in my particular case, as I have never 'borrowed bandwidth', and probably never will. Which makes some of the assertions and insinuations being made here rather otherworldly.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but since in my personal belief system there's nothing wrong with it, I didn't feel I needed to follow common courtesy or the law," Yeah, that'll work

You, sir, might agree with all the laws of your land as they are written and interpreted by those in the governmental and legal professions, and related areas. I, along with many others, do not. As you like it.

In the electronic world, people are pretty darned cavalier about the rights of others. They allow themselves great leeway in terms of what they feel "does little harm" to their victim - copy media, use their bandwidth, and so on. As if they figure the perpetrator is the one who gets to decide where the boundaries lie. Where on Earth do people get the idea that they get to decide when it is okay to use other people's property and resources? I expect the anonymity of the internet allows them to be callous, because they never see their victim's face.

Copying media is one thing. Using others' bandwidth selectively and with care, another. As for "cavalier", you are right, certainly. Which is shameful and deplorable. Though I don't see it as being a problem peculiar to "the electronic world", sadly.

Now, if you go to your neighbor and ask, "Dude, I noticed that your network is insecure. If I help you secure it, would you mind if I used it when my own line goes down," I'd say you were doing a good deed.

Which, by a fickle twist of fate, is how I might just go about things were I in such need, and had I wireless gear to begin with.

I'd like to see how many of you would react so nicely to someone finding your car unlocked, and taking it for a spin (well, they didn't use that much gas, so it was okay, right?). Unfortunately, how you say you'd react here doesn't count. That's theoretical, and may not accurately reflect what happens when you find someone else's burger wrappers on your passenger seat, or find someone else on your couch, flippingTV channels using your remote control (Well, it isn't like you were home, using your home and TV, right?)

Hm. I believe I already covered the things I would find unacceptable, a while ago. They included costing me money. I'll add to that: being in my house or other personal space without my prior knowledge and consent. My bandwidth is not the same though, as say, my hard drive, my car etc. Others' bandwidth can be used (emphasis: can) without costing, inconveniencing, sabotaging, hurting, compromising, or gaining knowledge of or power over the owner, or their workstation / other computer, as the case may be.

As I originally said, people are quite welcome to use some of my bandwidth now or in the future, as long as they're not stupid or greedy about it. But I fail to see why that automatically means I'm fine with people trying to steal my stuff, copy my data, pretend they're me, break into my place, and so on.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here, and I can't be sure right now if it's anyone's fault at all. These things happen, I guess.

 

[Mystery Man]

As I originally said, people are quite welcome to use some of my bandwidth now or in the future, as long as they're not stupid or greedy about it.

But see, those aren't the kind of people that are going to be "borrowing" your bandwidth. The guy sitting in his car parked across the street in the middle of the night that has highjacked your wireless router with his laptop and is downloading kiddy porn or is sending terrorist threats to the government which will in turn find out it was your IP address that it came from and come knocking on your door with a search warrant for the contents of your hard drive making your life very hard for the next several months is the type of person that will "borrow" your bandwidth. Never assume that it could never happen to you and don't count on not being taken advantage of, it could happen at any time.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But see, those aren't the kind of people that are going to be "borrowing" your bandwidth. The guy sitting in his car parked across the street in the middle of the night that has highjacked your wireless router with his laptop and is downloading kiddy porn or is sending terrorist threats to the government which will in turn find out it was your IP address that it came from and come knocking on your door with a search warrant for the contents of your hard drive making your life very hard for the next several months is the type of person that will "borrow" your bandwidth. Never assume that it could never happen to you and don't count on not being taken advantage of, it could happen at any time.

People like that are in need of a good psychologist, or something more drastic. That's regardless of whether they've illicitly 'shared' anyone else'e connection, including mine.

You might well be right about the likelihood of that type of person being the 'borrower'. I honestly don't know, and I honestly hope not. But this all started with someone raising the scenario of using someone's connection to post on a non-political, non-religious, strongly moderated hobby-focused forum. Hardly 'Satan for president' material, say.

So, it was on that foot that I joined in, but I think I've stumbled more than walked since then. :\

 

[Templetroll]

I was just going to say my network was back up, as I began to post I was disconnected again. I need to find out if the problem is with my Lynksys router or Bellsouth.
.

I think it is some guy hijacking your internet connection.

 

[Umbran]

Which makes some of the assertions and insinuations being made here rather otherworldly.

No insinuation - just a clarification that your stated position does not coincide with the operation of world at large.

You, sir, might agree with all the laws of your land as they are written and interpreted by those in the governmental and legal professions, and related areas. I, along with many others, do not. As you like it.

Right. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe it is okay for someone to decide when and how to use things that don't belong to them. Whether it is computer bandwidth, your livingroom TV, or the contents of your fridge makes little difference. It doesn't belong to you, yet you claim the right to decide to use it (even if you currently do not do so). From where do you draw this right?

Copying media is one thing. Using others' bandwidth selectively and with care, another.

Ah, but when did you get to decide what counts as "selectively and with care", and to which resources you may apply this, and which you may not?

As for "cavalier", you are right, certainly. Which is shameful and deplorable. Though I don't see it as being a problem peculiar to "the electronic world", sadly.

It is far more clear in the electronic world - in the real world, folks all understand that it isn't okay to walk through another person's home to get to where they are going. But somehow this is considered acceptable on the internet. People who wouldn't think of borrowing a bicycle without permission will happly steal bandwidth, and then brag about it.

Hm. I believe I already covered the things I would find unacceptable, a while ago. They included costing me money. I'll add to that: being in my house or other personal space without my prior knowledge and consent. My bandwidth is not the same though, as say, my hard drive, my car etc. Others' bandwidth can be used (emphasis: can) without costing, inconveniencing, sabotaging, hurting, compromising, or gaining knowledge of or power over the owner, or their workstation / other computer, as the case may be.

Your car, your house, and your TV can also all be used without your consent, with no noticible cost to you. Someone could borrow your car, drive it to the grocery and back, and you'd never notice a thing if you didn't need it at the time. Just as with bandwidth - you borrow it, and the person doesn't notice unless they engage in large downloads while you're borrowing.

If the issue is "can be used with no harm/nocitible cost to the owner", then there's no reason to differentiate between bandwidth and automobiles. The fact that one is material and the other not isn't compelling. Resources are resources.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here, and I can't be sure right now if it's anyone's fault at all. These things happen, I guess.

The major breakdown I see is that the things I previously phrased referring to the plural you seem to have taken to mean you, in particular. I'm pretty sure you, personally, don't comprise "many of you", and therefore should consider the possibility that what I was saying didn't apply to you personally in all particulars.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No insinuation - just a clarification that your stated position does not coincide with the operation of world at large.

Very well then. I think the assertion concerning assertions \) still stands though: "the operation of the world at large" is rather bold, for example. There's an awful lot of legally sanctioned theft and murder that goes on in the 'world at large', which kinda puts that there statement in a strange light.

Right. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe it is okay for someone to decide when and how to use things that don't belong to them. Whether it is computer bandwidth, your livingroom TV, or the contents of your fridge makes little difference. It doesn't belong to you, yet you claim the right to decide to use it (even if you currently do not do so). From where do you draw this right?

One thing is not necessarily another thing, just because it has one or several qualities in common.

Ah, but when did you get to decide what counts as "selectively and with care", and to which resources you may apply this, and which you may not?

I didn't. That'd be up to the good folks perpetrating the theoretically harmless crime.

It is far more clear in the electronic world - in the real world, folks all understand that it isn't okay to walk through another person's home to get to where they are going. But somehow this is considered acceptable on the internet. People who wouldn't think of borrowing a bicycle without permission will happly steal bandwidth, and then brag about it.

I expect bragging about either thing (which I maintain are distinct - to illustrate: 1. You could steal my bike, if I had one, and I wouldn't be able to use it for a given period of time. 2. You could steal some bandwidth while I was also using it and I might never know) would most of all demonstrate foolishness rather than malevolence, say. The kind of person who'd be short a couple.

Your car, your house, and your TV can also all be used without your consent, with no noticible cost to you. Someone could borrow your car, drive it to the grocery and back, and you'd never notice a thing if you didn't need it at the time. Just as with bandwidth - you borrow it, and the person doesn't notice unless they engage in large downloads while you're borrowing.

Fuel costs money. Downloads don't always. And see the comparison of scenarios 1 vs. 2 above; it covers the other issue.

If the issue is "can be used with no harm/nocitible cost to the owner", then there's no reason to differentiate between bandwidth and automobiles. The fact that one is material and the other not isn't compelling. Resources are resources.

I still say, an internet connection is not a car. I agree of course that resources are well, resources.

The major breakdown I see is that the things I previously phrased referring to the plural you seem to have taken to mean you, in particular. I'm pretty sure you, personally, don't comprise "many of you", and therefore should consider the possibility that what I was saying didn't apply to you personally in all particulars.

My apology if I misinterpreted some of your statements that way. To give myself a fair break, I was very tired when I bumbled my way into this thread.