In the past three years I have seen three related phenomenons with regards to wi-fi:
An increasing number of businesses are offering free wi-fi to attract customers.
An increasing number of private citizens are trying to prevent access to their wi-fi by outsiders.
Wi-fi detection devices are becoming more common and less expensive.
This got me thinking: Can one “own” a wi-fi signal? Or is this like trying to own a ray of light?
Imagine an extraordinarily skilled hacker, one even more skilled than the folks at 2600, in theory this person might not even be blocked by highly advanced encryption techniques. This person might be able to mooch wi-fi from his neighbors. In my scenario, is this person trespassing or steeling? How does a wi-fi signal fit in the scheme of Austrian property-rights ethos? Thanks.
The wi-fi networked must be sent out a machine that its owner has paid for and set up. The owner of that machine owns the wi-fi network that originates from it.
Good question. On that I would personally say that it is theft; the reasoning is that I see trespassing as involving land, and theft with propety with the machine creating the wi-fi (if anyone can correct my tech ignorce, please do) being the property referred to.
Also, does anyone else have another view on this? If you do I would be quite interested to hear what you have to say, my theorem might not be as tight as I hope it to be.
Of course I can “own” a ray of light. If I own a flashlight, I can turn it on and off whenever I want, and point it wherever i want. Therefore, I own it!
I think the ownership of radio spectrum might be as unsound philosophically as Intellectual Property. After all, when you claim ownership of spectrum you are telling everyone else what they can and cannot do with their own property (their radios), even when they are not harming you or your property.
The problem of wi-fi signals is that most people don’t do anything to limit their scope. If I have signal in my house, it is alright, but if the signal reaches my neighbour’s, then I’m invading his space. So then, in order to hack my network, the hacker would have to enter my house.
I think this is an easy one: If someone owns wifi equipment and broadcasts a signal beyond their property, they can’t expect to control the property of other people if they decide make use of that signal (stealing wifi, for example). Of course the wifi equipment owner could take measures to prevent this, such as limiting the transmission power to the bounds of their property, and encrypting the signal.
Of course there could be a scenario where you are not permitted to hack someone else’s wifi if you have voluntarily entered a contract - e.g insurance company / PDA or perhaps a homeowner association might prohibit this in their terms.
One of the defining characteristics of this problem is that if someone “steals” one’s wi-fi signal then he is impeding the owner of the wi-fi signal’s utility of it since a wi-fi can only efficiently support so many users.
I would think if you dont protect your wifi in some way, you have no right to complain. But if someone hacks into your wifi and uses your internet, I think this is stealing. They are utilizing the wifi to use the cable/dsl/whatever modem that is physically located on your property, that you pay for and own.
I think that saying you have no right to own the internet connection leads to the argument that I can hack your PC and steal your bank records or anything else on it, because you connect your PC to the internet, and you cannot own that. If the computer is connected to the internet, then it is part of the internet and fair game for me to use as I see fit. Or am I completely missing the point here?
The hose and water analogy I feel is false because the wifi signal is the water, but what represents the internet the wifi signal leads to? But again, I’d like to hear responses to this.
I can see how it might affect the “owners”, but if it genuinely didn’t, then surely there is no scarcity problem, and therefore the use of it doesn’t constitute stealing scarce resources; it is more like downloading an album in how it doesn’t affect the “owner” of the intellectual “property”.
The key here for me is whether it has an (negative) effect on the owners. So if it slows down your neighbours downloading, then you are stealing. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t look like theft. It’s like me stealing a loaf of your bread but it not disappearing from your kitchen. Surely an enhanced benefit to society?
Thedesolateone I agree. But for most people, or at least me (heavy internet user), another person leeching my internet would slow down my connection noticably. And with data caps being enforced in the US on almost every network, I dont see how there could not be a negative effect on the owner. Therefore you are causing detriment. But this is a small issue that can be easily resolved with ethernet cables
If it’s considered stealing for me to use your wi - fi, then it’s considered an invasion of my property rights that your wi- fi signal comes on to my property.
This hacker is gaining access to the private network of his neighbor. He is taking possession of the neighbor’s router. It is a form of trespassing. No different then if he stood on his lawn and used a remote control to change the channel on your TV.
