Original Post
Randy Cohen is one of my favorite writers. You may have come across his work in the New York Times Magazine as the weekly author of the Ethicist column, in which he answers queries from readers and advises them on his perspective of the situation's ethics. I came across the column of his from about two years ago and thought it was interesting:
Quote:I found Cohen's points interesting and persuasive, except for one: the part where he says that "while the failure to lock a door may indicate carelessness, not consent, in this case it does suggest indifference." For many users, the technical savvy needed to lock down a wireless access point may be beyond their capabilities. Alternatively, Cohen might be taking the slightly more defensible position that only technically savvy people are likely to have wireless access points in the first place and are therefore sufficiently able to lock them down if they choose, but I'm not sure I agree with that either. What do you guys think about the ethics of private, open wireless nodes? Share the bandwidth love, or keep out of your neighbor's property?
I accidentally discovered that the wireless Internet (Wi-Fi) card in my laptop lets me access the Web in my apartment. Clearly a neighbor has set up an access point with a signal strong enough to reach my kitchen. I use the Internet at home only to check e-mail, which will not affect my neighbor's usage. Can I use his signal? Should I offer to pay part of his monthly charge? -- Siona Listokin, Berkeley, Calif. If you can easily ID your neighbor and you regularly use his signal, you should ask his consent and offer to share the costs of this shared resource. But what about the more common situation, when you can't identify those whose wireless access points you encounter? ''If you're driving around town and someone's left a node open and you pop on and use it just to download some e-mail, feel free,'' advises Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel for Public Knowledge, a public interest group in Washington concerned with technology and intellectual property. Godwin is persuasive. The person who opened up access to you is unlikely even to know, let alone mind, that you've used it. If he does object, there's easy recourse: nearly all wireless setups offer password protection. And while the failure to lock a door may indicate carelessness, not consent, in this case it does suggest indifference. Godwin does warn of the tragedy of the commons, however, which here means you have an obligation not to use too much bandwidth -- by downloading massive music files, for example, which would inconvenience other users. But do you cheat the service provider, if not an individual consumer? Is there a free-rider problem? Time Warner Cable says there is, and it has taken action against those who have touted the availability of an open Wi-Fi node on computer bulletin boards. The company argues, in effect, that while you may have a glass of water at a neighbor's, you may not run a pipe from his place to yours. Property rights, as understood by Time Warner Cable, say, are worthy of consideration, but overemphasizing them may stifle the development of the public good that is universally available wireless Internet access. Consider the Interstate highway system or any public library: enormously useful institutions whose costs and benefits we all share. Cellphone service offers another approach, enabling anyone who pays a monthly fee to make a call from anyplace in the world (until he stumbles into a dead zone). ''This is a period of transition, and the natural reaction of some institutions is to clamp down,'' Godwin concludes. He's right. But that does not create a moral imperative to defer to those who do. Rather, you may use but not overuse Wi-Fi hot spots you encounter.
