A man has been arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street
with a laptop using someone else's unsecured wireless connection. Is it
immoral to do this?

So here's the thing.

You're walking down the street in Hypotheticalville and in front of you is a
gentleman who, when he walks, spills seemingly endless torrents of golden
coins on to the pavement behind him.

He seems unconcerned by this and you notice that if not picked up, these
magic coins quickly evaporate. Is it moral for you to pick a few up?

It's the kind of tree-falls-in-the-forest whimsy that an undergraduate
philosopher might mull over for a moment, but back in the real world a
not entirely dissimilar debate is being played out.

The man arrested in a street in west London is at least the third person
to be accused of breaching the law by taking internet service without
permission.

The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains
an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to
avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence".

It is a bit like reading your book from the light coming out from
someone's window -- Julian Baggini-- Philosopher

There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come
under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and
electronic fraud.

But if it can be interpreted as illegal, can it be truly said to be
immoral?

Heavy downloading might affect the unsecured person's speed of access or
download limit, but a use like checking an e-mail is hardly likely to be
noticed. Most "victims" will suffer no loss.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute
at Oxford University, says with technology moving rapidly,
socially-accepted moral positions can be slow to solidify.


Warchalking identified open wireless networks for those in the know

"I haven't thought about it. I'm not sure anybody has. It might be one
of those areas where cultural norms haven't evolved or stabilised yet.
It's so new it's not clear whether it's stealing or not. And sometimes
the law trails public norms.

"If you steal a silver Mont Blanc pen it's theft but if it's an ordinary
ballpoint pen or a pencil it is assumed you can take it.

"In the olden days people had norms about whether you were able to pick
apples from someone else's tree. Perhaps it's OK if the branches hang
over the road, but not from inside their garden. You have generally
shared expectations."

In 2002 Matt Jones, the original designer of the BBC News website,
devised "warchalking" with a group of friends. These chalk symbols on
walls and pavements showed those in the know where free wireless
internet was.

Freeloaders v borrowers

Among the sternest critics of the concept was Nokia, who months later
said: "This is theft, plain and simple."

But they were worried about users congregating near an open network and
slowing it down, as much as by the ethical considerations. For one
person checking an e-mail hardly-stretched home connection, the issue
might seem different to some.

Philosopher Julian Baggini says he can't see what all the fuss is about.

"I'm pro the stealers on this one. If you are doing it systematically to
avoid chipping in your bit you are a freeloader and that's immoral.

Are they going to prosecute someone who stands outside a bakery
warming
their hands?

Barry Fox
Technology writer

"But casual and occasional use while travelling is a bit like reading
your book from the light coming out from someone's window. It's like
eating someone's leftovers."

And he's happy to practise what he preaches.

"I've done it and I don't put a password on my own connection. For all I
know that's what someone's doing now.

"But the fact that something is morally acceptable doesn't change the
fact of its illegality. The rule of law is an important factor."

Freeloading is unacceptable, but the whole notion of a crackdown on the
theft of something that won't be missed shows up an increasingly
possessive society.

ISP victims

"We are really obsessed with things being ours or mine. But there are
things that can be shared."

An internet service provider (ISP) might argue it is the victim of
wireless theft. If people could use other people's wireless, why buy
their own?

The idea of "piggybacking" off somebody else's system harks back to the
dawn of the internet and the phone phreaking - gaining free calls by
cracking the systems - that inspired many technology pioneers.


There's nothing wrong in a little al fresco surfing is there?

Now, of course, the morality of technology is a matter for mainstream
discourse.

Barry Fox, contributing editor for Europe Consumer Electronics Daily,
says unsecured networks are getting fewer and fewer, but the real moral
issue is why computer firms don't take more responsibility for their
customers' security.

"When I'm in London I'm in a block of flats, I scan and find unsecured
networks. When I first started there were any number of free and
unsecured networks, now it's mainly secured networks because many of the
ISPs have made it much easier.

"There is a view that if people are daft enough to throw their signal
out for anyone to pick up they deserve what they get.

"On the other hand, the computer manufacturers have never done anything
to make things easier for the consumer, unless forced to."

The risk of one's computer being hacked or used for malicious purposes
is not a fiction, and is the reason that many people insist on securing
their wireless connections.

Firework display

But Barry Fox finds it hard to see how a non-invasive use of someone
else's signal is a serious crime. "If the person was trying to infect a
computer or steal data, that's one thing. But are they going to
prosecute someone who stands outside a bakery warming their hands? It is
like watching someone else's firework display."

There will be many people who would be outraged to find someone nicking
their wireless. The water cooler ethicists may be split down the middle
for some time.

But, as Bostrom notes, more attention will bring debates and eventually
an accepted norm.

"Maybe with this arrest somebody will want to write a paper on it," he
says.

The "open front door" analogy is correct, but it's not like stealing the
TV - which results in sigificant loss to the property owner. It is much
more like walking in, taking a look at the pictures on the wall, sitting
on the sofa for a few minutes, watching a bit of TV, and then walking
out again leaving everything perfectly intact. I really can't believe
that the police would spend a lot of time persuing people who trespassed
in this way as criminals. I totally agree with the permission argument -
if you set up your wireless network without any security you should be
deemed to have allowed access to all comers. Andrew, Berkeley,
California

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6960304.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6960304