Piggybacking

Sitting around the kitchen at lunch today the conversation veered toward internet providers. Now, I work for what I would consider a tech company. At least half of the staff has some sort of IT degree and/or background, so this was on the low end of the techie conversations that often come up. To my surprise, I was part of the minority of my coworkers who actually pay for their home internet services. The rest of them don’t go without, of course; they piggyback. We all NEED the internet…I swear it’s an addiction of our entire culture.

Anyways, with the copious number of wireless networks crisscrossing every neighborhood in the greater DC area, it’s not hard to believe that a good number of the people using the internet are doing so on their neighbor’s buck. This essentially means that we’re stealing each other’s internet, right? It seems unethical, by why do so many of us do it without thinking twice? Hell, we even seem proud about it at times. It’s a small victory, I got online and didn’t have to pay a dime! I would bet the majority of us, even if we don’t do it regularly, have jumped on a neighbors signal when our own network was down. It’s just become common practice, and so long as no malicious activities ensue…well, it just doesn’t seem that bad.

(Funny, my router just dropped my signal mid-post, and now…well, I’m on my neighbor’s network. Thanks ‘emerge,’ whoever you are.)

The common thinking seems to go like this. My neighbor, let’s call her Jane, doesn’t have her wireless network well protected. I don’t need a key or a password to log on, and she doesn’t have a firewall up. Therefore, Jane’s internet is fair game, she doesn’t mind if I or anyone else in the vicinity piggyback on her connection. If she did, obviously she’d lock it down. If I do piggyback, I’m only taking something that Jane has put out there for the taking.

Now, let’s apply this logic to another situation. Say Jane has a sweet ride…a Beamer, for argument’s sake…and I’m a broke recent grad with no vehicle and it’s a long-ass walk to the Metro. Now, Jane, being the naïve small town girl in the big city, doesn’t always remember to lock up her beautiful car. She often leaves it sitting in the lot, unlocked, keys in the ignition. If I wander out one day trying to figure out the quickest way to get to the bar (let’s be honest, where else am I going) and see Jane’s keys dangling there in her open car, jump in and drive off, I’m stealing. Right? This is obviously wrong. Even though the keys were in the car, the car was unlocked, and it took no malicious effort on my part (actually saved me effort) to drive off in the car, it’s still unacceptable. So what’s the difference? Why can I steal Jane’s unlocked internet but not Jane’s unlocked car?

I tend to think that the difference is in the exclusivity of what is being stolen. If I steal Jane’s internet connection I’m just taking a bit of bandwidth. She can still get online, check her email, chat, surf the net, etc. But if I steal Jane’s car…well, Jane’s shit outta luck. Even if I leave the spare tire behind, it’s not doing her much good. Because me taking the car excludes her from using the car it causes her a greater loss, it is ethically more wrong.

Some other ideas batted around were the tangibility of what was stolen. You can’t see a wireless connection, you don’t really know you’re missing out on anything, etc. The idea of finite source also came up. There seems to be an infinite source of “internet,” whatever that is. You wouldn’t be so upset if someone stole a bucket of water from your hose to wash his car, but you would be upset if they stole your only bucket. To you, the bucket is an immediately finite thing, the water seems rather infinite in comparison.

Anyone out there got any thoughts on this quandary?