Piggybacking (Internet Access) - Views

Views

Views on the ethics of piggybacking vary widely. Many support the practice, stating it is harmless, and that it benefits the piggybacker at no expense to others, while others criticize it with terms like "leeching", "mooching", or "freeloading". A variety of analogies are made in public discussions to relate the practice to more familiar situations. Advocates compare the practice to:

• Sitting behind another passenger on a train, and reading their newspaper over their shoulder.
• Enjoying the music a neighbour is playing in their backyard.
• Using a drinking fountain.
• Sitting in a chair put in a public place.
• Reading from the light of a porch light or streetlamp.
• Accepting an invitation to a party, since unprotected wireless routers can be interpreted as being open to use.
• Borrowing a cup of sugar

Opponents to piggybacking compare the practice to:

• Entering a home just because the door is unlocked
• Hanging on the outside of a bus to obtain a free ride.
• Connecting one's own wire to a neighbour's house to obtain free cable TV service when the neighbour is a subscriber.

The piggybacker is using the connection paid for by another without sharing the cost. This is especially commonplace in an apartment building where many residents live within the normal range of a single wireless connection. Some residents are able to gain free Internet access while others pay. Many ISPs charge monthly rates, however, so there is no difference in cost to the network owner. Excessive piggybacking may slow the host's connection, with the host typically unaware of the reason for the reduction of speed. This is more of a problem where a large number of persons are engaging in this practice, such as in an apartment or near a business.

Piggybackers may engage in illegal activity such as identity theft or child pornography without much of a trail to their own identity, leaving network owners subject to investigation for crimes of which they are unaware. While persons engaging in piggybacking are generally honest citizens, a smaller number are breaking the law in this manner, avoiding identification by investigators. This in particular has led to some anti-piggybacking laws.

Some access points, when using factory default settings, are configured to provide wireless access to all who request it. Some commentators argue that those who set up access points without enabling security measures are offering their connection to the community. Many people intentionally leave their networks open to allow neighbours casual access, with some joining wireless community networks to share bandwidth freely. It has largely become good etiquette to leave access points open for others to use, just as someone expects to find open access points while on the road.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, ethicist for the New York Times, recommends notifying network owners if they are identifiable, but says there is nothing inherently wrong with accessing an open network and using the connection. "The responsibility for deciding whether others should be able to tap into a given access belongs squarely on the shoulders of those setting up the original connection."

Similarly, Randy Cohen, author of The Ethicist column for The New York Times Magazine and National Public Radio, says that one should attempt to contact the owner of a regularly used network, and offer to contribute to the cost. But he points out that network owners can easily password protect their networks, and quotes attorney Mike Godwin, concluding that open networks likely represent indifference on the part of the network owner, and accessing them is morally acceptable, if not abused.

Policy analyst Timothy B. Lee writes in the International Herald Tribune that the ubiquity of open wireless points is something to celebrate. He says that borrowing a neighbour's Wi-Fi is like sharing a cup of sugar, and leaving a network open is just being a good neighbour.

Techdirt article contributor Mike Masnick responded recently to an article in Time Magazine, expressing his disagreement with why a man was arrested for piggybacking a cafe's wireless medium. The man was charged with breaking Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which states and includes anyone who: "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." The "Time's" writer himself is not sure what that title really means or how it applies to contemporary society, being that the code was established regarding computers and their networks during the Cold War era.

In the technical legality of the matter, Techdirt writer Mike Masnick believes the code was not broken because the access point owner did not secure their device specifically for authorized users, therefore the device was implicitly placed into a status of "authorized". Lev Grossman, with Time Magazine, is on the side of most specialist and consumers, who believe the fault, if there is any, is mostly with the network's host or owner

An analogy commonly used in this arena of debate equates wireless signal piggybacking with entering a house with an open door. Both are supposed to be equatable but the analogy is tricky, as it does not take into account unique differences regarding the two items in reference, ultimately leaving the analogy flawed.

The key to the flaw in the analogy is that with an unprotected access point the default status is for all users to be authorized. An access point is an active device which initiates the announcement of its services and if setup securely allows or denies authorization by its visitors.

A house door on the other hand has physical attributes that distinguish access to the house as authorized or unauthorized by its owner. Even with an open house door, it is plain to know if you have been invited to that house by its owner and if entrance will be authorized or denied. A house owner's door is passive but has an owner who knows the risks of leaving their door open and house unprotected in the absence of their gate keeping presence. Equally, wireless access point owners should be aware that security risks exist when they leave their network unprotected. In this scenario, the owner has made a decision, which is to allow their gatekeeper or access point to authorize all who attempt to connect because the gatekeeper was not told who to not let in.