Skip to main content

On Stealing Wireless Internet

Just when I got my laptop, I decided to try on the wireless feature at my neighborhood. I was surprised that many people, who had wireless routers and networks, were detected by my laptop. I was even more surprised at the fact that a good number of them were unprotected. Connecting to one gave me a faster connection than the one I had at home. I was tempted to stay connected, but I felt I was doing something that I shouldn't be (call it guilt). I mean, it's not my fault that I was able to tap into my neighbor's internet, even though a door wide open that leads to something wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have to or can go into it.

So, I disconnected.

I mean, sure: it's not like I killed someone, but it's still as bad as stealing someone's wallet. What if the guy paid for bandwidth? What if his bills are already outrageously high? What if he was doing some serious work that required a consistently hi-speed connection? That would certainly make me a bad neighbor.

But seriously, whose fault is it? Like I mentioned in the first paragraph, two wrongs don't make a right, but considering that a lot of people would rather take the easy way, the distinction seems to go away. It's like that little voice in your head nagging, "Come on, you're just borrowing some bandwidth. It's not like the guy's paying for it."

Bottom line: I personally think that stealing wireless internet is wrong simply because it is in and of itself an act of robbery. Stealing someone's unsecured wireless internet is as bad as hacking into a secured wireless network and stealing the internet, especially since hackers can access more than just the internet from such wireless networks.

What do you think? Is stealing from unsecure wirless networks okay, or is it as immoral as hacking to the network and stealing the bandwidth?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

What Needs to be Said about the Gaza Massacre

It has been a tumultuous week that has passed. Ever since seeing the soul-crushing news of 61 (SIXTY ONE) Palestinians murdered as they were protesting their rights to be free from the open-air prison of Gaza, I've been sick to my stomach and heartbroken. The blood of my brothers and sisters spilt over the sands of the Gaza Strip ran aplenty as if it were cheap. Men, women, children, journalists, and medical personnel were slaughtered in cold blood with live ammunition from guns fired by Israeli terrorist soldiers hundreds of yards away overlooking the "border". What did the shameful Western media do about it? CNN claims "dozens die at the border". The NYT published multiple sham propaganda attempts disguised as "opinion pieces" blaming the Palestinians for their deaths, even going as far as to dehumanize them and negate their suffering. Even the BBC had the gall to call them "clashes". "Clashes"?! It was a massacre! Murde...