Finding an open Wi-Fi hotspot is no longer a difficult task in this day and age. In fact, some computers even log on to first available wireless network automatically. To the surprise of many, logging onto an unsecured network without permission can be a criminal offense. In some places, Wi-Fi "freeloading" is a crime punishable by law. One thing is clear: The legal experts in the United States can't find any law that clearly makes Wi-Fi freeloading a criminal act.8
This situation needs to be examined in depth to determine if the use of unsecured wireless networks should be considered a criminal act. Who should be responsible for preventing unauthorized access to the wireless network? Should the end user be held accountable if their computer connects to an unsecured wireless network automatically? Should the network administrator be held responsible for keeping the network free from unauthorized access? These questions, and more, will be examined thoroughly to determine a course of action.
I. Understanding the situation
A. Relevant Facts
1. Wireless networks can be secured, requiring connected devices to have a password or be identified as allowed to connect.
2. Some wireless devices/laptops automatically connect to unsecured wireless networks.
3. Wireless routers come with instructions so that even a novice user can implement basic security on their wireless network.
4. Some neighbors choose to pay for one wireless connection and share it among each other.
5. Some people use unsecured access points to access adult sites, send spam, or engage in activities that they don't want traced back to themselves.
6. Many people engage in the use of Wi-Fi freeloading. In one UK survey over half the people polled admitted to connecting to open networks.2 In a survey done by the popular site lifehacker.com, over 80 percent of people admitted to engaging in this behavior.11
7. Some parts of the world are banning open Wi-Fi. It is illegal in for certain businesses in New York to have an open network.1
8. Some people connect to wireless networks at libraries, coffee shops, churches and other publicly available "hotspots" from their home or car. The practice of driving around to find open hotspots is sometimes called "war-driving". 5 Some people have been arrested for war-driving in the United States. 6
9. As of 2004 there was no law explicitly stating that simply logging on to an open network was illegal. 5
B. Facts that raise an ethical issue.
1. Neighbors sharing one paid connection.
This is an issue because before the advent of wireless routers, each household had to pay for their own individual high-speed connection. In fact, when commercially available routers were first available for home use, Internet service providers were reluctant to provide any information about how to configure their high-speed connection to work with a router. ISPs expected households to purchase multiple connections instead of share one connection within the household. Now that society thrives on wireless routers, one connection can be shared between multiple households.
This is an issue because high-speed networks cost money to maintain. If ISPs continue to lose money to the practice of Wi-Fi sharing there will be consequences. One possible consequence is the raising the price of service for loyal customers to make up the loss of revenue to sharing neighbors. In an extreme case, the service provider could go out of business.
The best way to stay within the law is to read the terms of service that come with your high-speed connection. For instance, the terms of service for Verizon Online DSL service specifically prohibits the sharing of a connection between neighbors.7
2. People using unsecured networks to participate in questionable activities
This is an issue because if a wireless access point is used as a hub for questionable activities, those activities could be traced back to an innocent person. If an innocent person's connection is used to send mass quantities of SPAM, they could be blacklisted from accessing certain parts of the Internet. If a connection is used for viewing pornography, all sorts of problems could ensue, including the destruction of an innocent person's reputation. If the connection was used for illegal purposes such as viewing child pornography or stealing credit card numbers, the criminal could get away, and the crime could point to an innocent Internet user being interrogated.
3. Using public "hotspots" from home or your car
When someone uses a public hotspot from home, it limits the availability of that resource. People that frequent that particular public place (church, coffee shop, library) depend on that resource being available for use.
C. Stakeholders involved
The affected parties include the following:
Internet service providers (ISPs)
Wi-Fi Freeloaders / Wi-Fi thieves (referred to as a "freeloader" for this paper)
Network Administrators (the person who maintains or initially configured the network)
Paying Customers (individuals that pay for an Internet connection)
Society/Taxpayers
Owner of the Wi-Fi Network
II. Isolating the major ethical dilemma
Should Wi-Fi "freeloading" be prohibited?
III. Analyzing the alternatives
Consequentialism
Who will be harmed if a person "freeloads" Wi-Fi?
If the Wi-Fi was used to check the weather, an email, or google the answer to a pressing question, very little bandwidth would be used, it would not affect the usability of the network in any noticeable way and it wouldn't be very harmful at all. However, if the Wi-Fi were used to download huge files, send mass emails (SPAM) or play online video games, the network performance would most certainly be affected in a noticeable way. If the Wi-Fi were used excessively and frequently it could hinder the performance of the network. This would be harmful because the person paying for the Internet connection would get less performance for their money and in extreme cases it could even slow down the connection for other customers that share the same ISP. Cable Internet service providers' function as one big network and excessive use by any one customer can affect the performance for other users in the neighborhood.
Who will be harmed if Wi-Fi "freeloading" is prohibited?
Prohibiting the use of unsecured Wi-Fi presents a couple problems. One of the problems involves enforcing the illegality of connecting to unsecured Wi-Fi. This would cost money, and it would seem logical that increased law enforcement would lead to increased taxes for the community. Another party harmed by this decision is the ignorant user that accidentally or automatically connects to a network that is not their own. Now they have suddenly broken the law. It is also harmful to anyone who finds himself or herself in need of the convenience of Wi-Fi to solve a problem. Maybe an important email is expected or needs to be sent, or some online only information needs to be accessed immediately. It is convenient to be able to connect to unsecured Wi-Fi when in a pinch.
Which alternative results in the least harm, A or B? A
It would more harmful to require all of society to pay to police the use of unsecured Wi-Fi. It would be incorrect to assume that all unauthorized use of Wi-Fi is the resource intrusive kind, or the devious/criminal in nature. Most unauthorized use goes unnoticed as it is.
Who will benefit if "freeloading" is allowed?
The chief beneficiary is the person using the Wi-Fi. They are taking advantage of an available resource without having to pay for it. It is convenient for anyone who needs to access the Internet away from home but in range of an open network. Network administrators also benefit by being granted the freedom to use their network as they see fit. Society also benefits by not having to use resources to micromanage every last Wi-Fi network around.
Who will benefit if "freeloading" Wi-Fi is prohibited?
The action of prohibiting use of unsecured Wi-Fi benefits the person who owns the unsecured Wi-Fi, and it also benefits ISPs. It has been pointed out that almost all ISPs forbid the practice of sharing your connection openly.4 Casual Internet users may consider purchasing their own connection if they can no longer conveniently use unsecured Wi-Fi connections. Also, open networks make identity theft easier, and that is costly for everyone involved.
Which alternative results in the maximum benefit, D or E? D
If the use of unsecured Wi-Fi were prohibited, people that maintain unsecure networks would benefit from better performance, and ISPs could see an increase in subscribers but it would all come at such a great cost to the rest of society. Greater benefits would be realized by allowing network administrators to retain the freedom to choose how to use their network. The amount of money that would be saved by keeping the government out of this situation would benefit taxpayers as well.
Rights and Duties
Which rights have been abridged?
The owner of the Wi-Fi network has the right to have their property be left alone. That is the negative right of the Wi-Fi owner. Therefore it is the duty of others to leave the network alone. In the same way, the "freeloader" has the right to be left alone, and by having open networks broadcasted into his or her personal space, their negative right has been violated. It is the duty of the Wi-Fi owner to make sure that their network does not interfere with peoples' wireless devices. A network owner should use a form of encryption or security to avoid being available for automatic connections.
Kant's Categorical imperative
If a person "freeloads" Wi-Fi, who will be treated with disrespect?
It would be respectful to ask for permission before using the Wi-Fi, so in this case the owner of the Wi-Fi network is disrespected. Also, the ISP is disrespected because their service is being used without being compensated.
If Wi-Fi "freeloading" is prohibited, who will be treated with disrespect?
It is disrespectful to punish someone if his or her computer automatically connects to an open Wi-Fi connection. It is also disrespectful to society. It would be very expensive to police those that logged on to open Wi-Fi when simple measures could be taken to restrict access to the Wi-Fi by the network administrator.
Which alternative is preferable, H or I? H
It would be more acceptable to disrespect a relatively small number of Wi-Fi network administrators and ISPs than it would to disrespect all the society by making them pay taxes to police a problem that could be easily remedied by using basic forms of network security.
If Wi-Fi "freeloading" is allowed, who will be treated unlike others?
The person taking advantage of the open Wi-Fi will receive the benefit of using Wi-Fi without having to pay for it like the rest of subscribers.
If Wi-Fi "freeloading" is prohibited, who will be treated unlike others?
ISPs will get special treatment that protects their business, while small businesses like coffee shops that effectively use open Wi-Fi would suffer. Small businesses have already had to deal with this issue in the UK. 9
Which alternative is preferable, K or L?
Are there benefits if everyone participates in Wi-Fi "freeloading"?
One benefit is convenience. Whenever there is an open Wi-Fi network available society enjoys the ability to use the Internet. Another benefit is that those who cannot afford their own Internet connection can participate in the use of the Internet and stay better informed and educated citizens. The Internet can be an educational tool and some would argue that society benefits from its availability.
Are there benefits if Wi-Fi "freeloading" were prohibited?
Those that pay for their own Internet connection get to use the full potential of that resource without having to worry about how it may be used by "freeloaders".
Which alternative is preferable, N or O? N
There are more benefits for more people when open Wi-Fi use is allowed.
Step IV. Making a decision and planning the implementation
Decision
Wi-Fi "freeloading" should not be prohibited; instead network administrators should take responsibility for securing their network. However, attempts to bypass Wi-Fi security should be considered criminal.
Steps needed to implement the decision
Encourage network administrators to use a basic form of network security at all times if they do not intend to share their Internet connection with everyone.
Encourage wireless router manufacturers and retailers to provide services and instructions to create a secure network.
Encourage ISPs to disclose their policy about sharing your connection outside of your home.
The affect on the major Stakeholders
When more people choose to secure their Wi-Fi networks,
What other longer-term changes would help prevent such problems in the future?
The next major change in Wi-Fi technology should create a standard that requires a base form of security to function. No functionality without security means that there will be no open networks. In order to use a network you will have to obtain permission. In order to share your connection, you have to make public the information necessary to gain access to your network. This is also a better situation for ISPs because their product is not being given away as readily.
What should have been done or not done in the first place to avoid this dilemma?
When new technologies are developed it is often difficult to predict how they will be used or misused. If the past is any sign of what the future will bring, it would be correct to think that wireless technologies will increase both in speed, and range. Imagine being able to broadcast your Wi-Fi network to your friend's house 2 miles away. With technology this powerful we have to consider making Wi-Fi security an integral part of the new Wi-Fi products produced.
Just because we can create routers that broadcast miles instead of feet doesn't mean that this product should exist for the general public to purchase. In the future Wi-Fi networks may become so powerful that there will no longer be any need to have a cable modem or DSL connection at your home. ISPs could just sell Wi-Fi connections to households. Many households have done away with traditional telephone lines in favor of completely wireless cell phones. Maybe the next technology to become obsolete is wired Internet connections.
Many of the headaches we have today surrounding the legality of "freeloading" Wi-Fi connections has grown out of the lack of planning. Wireless standards and security standards are a mess right now. Many Wi-Fi products don't even work together, and if they do work together, the security standards aren't compatible. All of the incompatibilities lead to people leaving their network unsecured, even though they want it to be secure. The next generation of Wi-Fi should require security to function, eliminating open networks all together. The security required should be standardized and all Wi-Fi products produced should be required to be compatible with this base level of security.
Conclusion
Wi-Fi freeloading is an issue from Michigan to the UK to Singapore.9 It's a gray area right now, but the solution is increasing the use of wireless security, not trying to police the existence of open networks. Setting up wireless security is not that difficult, but it could be easier, and that is what Wi-Fi manufactures, retailers, and network administrators need to work together on. Wireless "freeloading" should not be prohibited.
