I think it's less acceptable (if it ever was) now that many providers cap your useage.
I'd be very annoyed if someone was sat outside my house using my broadband, and used up my allowance, because to continue to be able to do my job and thus remain employed, it would be ME that would have to fork out extra cash in order to have enough bandwidth again to be able to access the internet.
Quite a few people don't have the expertise to be able to lock theirs up. Me? I'm locking mine down if I ever have wifi. If I pay for something like that, I am not about to have someone leeching my speed. There are way too many places to get it for free.
Well there are a lot of places who don't, and like it that way. The open internet attracts business. Coffee shops, bookstores, and eateries, to name a few, sometimes have this open to attract customers. So there are too many places to get it for free without leaching off of other citizens.
As others have pointed out, not everyone has the nouse to secure their wireless networks.
It would be nice to have wireless internet access wherever you are, for free, but again as others have said, someone has to foot the bill, nothing is for free.
Those with Clue will have secured their networks. Those without Clue may not have. Being without Clue, they may also not realise this leaves them open to running out of quota on their broadband.
Is it right to take advantage in that situation? What would your reaction be if someone hacked *your* wireless (assuming you had shoved some sort of security on it) - it's not that hard to do - and had used your quota? Would you just think oh well, that's the way it goes, I will live without the internet for the next week or two? Would you fork out happily for more quota, knowing you couldn't possibly have used it all?
Just because the wireless is open, and there, and convenient, doesn't make it right to use it, unless it's actually a public access point put in for just that reason.
While I agree that it's a small thing to be arrested for, I think it is very rude to steal somebody else's internet by sitting outside their house. If they are *cough* your stupid next door neighbour who has an unsecured network that interferes with yours, it's different. At least you're not taking up their parking space!
I'm not sure the internet should be free. Running an ISP is not free.
Because local government runs libraries, because they are local. They can't run the internet. But if national government did, I think the internet and accessing it would be different. It would take several weeks to process any broken internet connection and whoever fixed it would be incompetent and charge the government enormous amounts of money more than they should. There's also a problem with funding it; I don't object much to paying taxes so that offensive teenage chavs who take cocaine and jump off bridges can have their broken legs stuck back together and get taught to read, but paying for them to be on the internet is a thing I and the rest of the internet would strongly like to not do. The question of censorship is another one; would it be able to work in the same way as with ISPs at the moment, where you agree to terms and conditions that include not using your internet connection for child porn and incitement of violence, and can be kicked off and reported to the police if you break it? Would the process of arresting people for such crimes be as transparent if central government was responsible for providing internet, or would it be open to abuses, if for example a party was elected of whose membership 70% thought homosexuality was immoral? I don't know.
I realise that the practicalities of making books or internet access free or public access are many and complex, but still I feel strongly that they should not become facilities only available to those who have the money to pay for them.
We haven't worked out the 'how' yet because we are silly, and because the problems are not trivial. I mean, really, we haven't worked out public libraries properly yet and they've been around for quite some time...
Indeed, and the models for using them are ones that prevent (a certain amount of) abuse.
I realise that the practicalities of making books or internet access free or public access are many and complex, but still I feel strongly that they should not become facilities only available to those who have the money to pay for them.
"The internet should be free" is all very well and good.... but someone has to pay for the infrastructure to keep the darn thing running. The net is still growing and every year ISPs need more impressive bits of kit to keep the ediface running.
The commerical pressures in doing this are generally kept quite quiet; however there have been spats every now and again at interchange points between networks where larger providers have decided not to exchange traffic with smaller providers.
I should also note that there is a reason why most tier 1 ISPs tend to be owned or are telcos - only they have the cost savings on the physical fibre infrastructure to provide large scale bandwidth at a reasonable cost.
On top of this there is the question of what the person stealing the bandwidth was actually doing. The last time this happened the person was doing something not so nice at the time and the Police used the computer mis-use act as a way to arrest him, inspect what was on the computer, etc.
Running or connecting to an open network is also asking for trouble. If you run an open network, you're the one responsible for what happens on it. There isn't really a defense of "But I was running an open network...". Add in that someone could be nasty to you easily break into your machines, etc. On the other hand, I could easily set up an open network which doesn't go anywhere near my real network, but which routes everything you do via proxies I control so that I can see everything you do. There are limits to the evil which can be done (SSL stops a bit of that), but it can still be quite nasty.
But surely if one is in that situation, one does not use an unsecured network?
A person who walks into an unlocked home and steals a stereo is still a thief.
Nothing is free. Libraries are an expensive public service that is funded through tax dollars. Essentially, everyone pays and we agree to this as one of the suite of services that are borne by taxpayers.
A private broadband connection is a contracted service between a private consumer and a private service provider. Saying that a third party is entitled to hijack and use this service is like saying someone is entitled to to hijack the car of their neighbor because it is just sitting there not being used. It isn't rude. It is theft.
Now, if a municipality wishes to purchase a wi-fi network and make it available free to all citizens, that's fine. That is a service, paid for by everyone and therefore available to everyone. That is, of course, if the taxpayers of that municipality are willing to shoulder the burden.
When I was setting up the wireless network at my parents house, one of the things I was thinking about was whether it would be possible to set up a guest IP range which would allow anyone to connect for an hour each day and which would be securely firewalled. The firewall part I can do, but I'm not sure about timed connections.
Having mentioned security, knicking people's bandwidth is going to be a problem when nasty people grab the bandwidth to do extremely illegal things. But then you get the same problem with public networks run by e.g. councils. I imagine someone's going to need to solve that problem!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 04:21 pm (UTC)I don't generally get upset if someone is sitting on the pavement in front of my house. I might go talk to them though.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 04:37 pm (UTC)I'd be very annoyed if someone was sat outside my house using my broadband, and used up my allowance, because to continue to be able to do my job and thus remain employed, it would be ME that would have to fork out extra cash in order to have enough bandwidth again to be able to access the internet.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 05:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 08:47 am (UTC)Not if everyone locks their networks, there aren't.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 12:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 11:18 pm (UTC)It would be nice to have wireless internet access wherever you are, for free, but again as others have said, someone has to foot the bill, nothing is for free.
Those with Clue will have secured their networks. Those without Clue may not have. Being without Clue, they may also not realise this leaves them open to running out of quota on their broadband.
Is it right to take advantage in that situation? What would your reaction be if someone hacked *your* wireless (assuming you had shoved some sort of security on it) - it's not that hard to do - and had used your quota? Would you just think oh well, that's the way it goes, I will live without the internet for the next week or two? Would you fork out happily for more quota, knowing you couldn't possibly have used it all?
Just because the wireless is open, and there, and convenient, doesn't make it right to use it, unless it's actually a public access point put in for just that reason.
That's my opinion, anyway :)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 05:43 pm (UTC)I'm not sure the internet should be free. Running an ISP is not free.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 06:35 pm (UTC)Do you think libraries should be free?
Why is the internet different?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 08:50 am (UTC)We haven't worked out the 'how' yet because we are silly, and because the problems are not trivial. I mean, really, we haven't worked out public libraries properly yet and they've been around for quite some time...
no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 08:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 08:46 am (UTC)I realise that the practicalities of making books or internet access free or public access are many and complex, but still I feel strongly that they should not become facilities only available to those who have the money to pay for them.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 08:54 pm (UTC)The commerical pressures in doing this are generally kept quite quiet; however there have been spats every now and again at interchange points between networks where larger providers have decided not to exchange traffic with smaller providers.
I should also note that there is a reason why most tier 1 ISPs tend to be owned or are telcos - only they have the cost savings on the physical fibre infrastructure to provide large scale bandwidth at a reasonable cost.
On top of this there is the question of what the person stealing the bandwidth was actually doing. The last time this happened the person was doing something not so nice at the time and the Police used the computer mis-use act as a way to arrest him, inspect what was on the computer, etc.
Running or connecting to an open network is also asking for trouble. If you run an open network, you're the one responsible for what happens on it. There isn't really a defense of "But I was running an open network...". Add in that someone could be nasty to you easily break into your machines, etc. On the other hand, I could easily set up an open network which doesn't go anywhere near my real network, but which routes everything you do via proxies I control so that I can see everything you do. There are limits to the evil which can be done (SSL stops a bit of that), but it can still be quite nasty.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 10:02 pm (UTC)A person who walks into an unlocked home and steals a stereo is still a thief.
Nothing is free. Libraries are an expensive public service that is funded through tax dollars. Essentially, everyone pays and we agree to this as one of the suite of services that are borne by taxpayers.
A private broadband connection is a contracted service between a private consumer and a private service provider. Saying that a third party is entitled to hijack and use this service is like saying someone is entitled to to hijack the car of their neighbor because it is just sitting there not being used. It isn't rude. It is theft.
Now, if a municipality wishes to purchase a wi-fi network and make it available free to all citizens, that's fine. That is a service, paid for by everyone and therefore available to everyone. That is, of course, if the taxpayers of that municipality are willing to shoulder the burden.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 01:55 pm (UTC)Having mentioned security, knicking people's bandwidth is going to be a problem when nasty people grab the bandwidth to do extremely illegal things. But then you get the same problem with public networks run by e.g. councils. I imagine someone's going to need to solve that problem!