Setting Up My Home Wireless Network: Lessons & Challenges

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread discusses the experiences and ethical considerations surrounding the setup of home wireless networks, including the discovery of unsecured networks and the implications of using them. Participants share personal anecdotes, technical challenges, and moral viewpoints related to accessing others' internet connections.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes setting up a new wireless network and discovering multiple unsecured networks nearby, questioning if others experience the same.
  • Another participant expresses discomfort with using unsecured networks, stating they do not like the idea of "stealing" bandwidth.
  • Some participants argue that using unsecured networks does not deprive the owner of bandwidth, suggesting that minimal usage does not constitute theft.
  • There is a discussion about the difference between internet theft and other forms of theft, with some asserting that bandwidth theft can slow down the network for others.
  • One participant mentions that the ethics of stealing, even in small amounts, should not be dismissed, while others challenge this perspective.
  • Several participants share personal experiences of using borrowed signals and express indifference towards the ethical implications of doing so.
  • Statistics about retail theft are introduced, with a participant noting that most losses in stores are due to internal theft rather than shoplifting.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the ethics of using unsecured networks, with some arguing it is acceptable while others maintain it is wrong. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the moral implications of accessing others' internet connections.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about bandwidth usage and theft, but these assumptions are not universally accepted. The discussion includes anecdotal evidence and personal experiences that may not apply broadly.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals setting up home networks, those considering the ethics of using unsecured connections, and readers curious about the implications of internet sharing in residential areas.

ShawnD
Science Advisor
Messages
715
Reaction score
2
Just today I purchased a new laptop computer with built-in wireless networking. I used this as an opportunity to start my wireless network by also buying a wireless router. After setting this all up using a wired connection, I started to search for available wireless networks. My computer immediately found my network, but it also found 4 other networks with strong signals and no passwords required. Does anybody else find this many access points in their own home? Right now I'm piggy-backing on one of those networks just to see how things are going, and so far it's going ok. I sort of wonder how long I can stay on this one before somebody notices I'm stealing bandwidth. Maybe I'll share some P2P porn or something :-p
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
ShawnD said:
Just today I purchased a new laptop computer with built-in wireless networking. I used this as an opportunity to start my wireless network by also buying a wireless router. After setting this all up using a wired connection, I started to search for available wireless networks. My computer immediately found my network, but it also found 4 other networks with strong signals and no passwords required. Does anybody else find this many access points in their own home? Right now I'm piggy-backing on one of those networks just to see how things are going, and so far it's going ok. I sort of wonder how long I can stay on this one before somebody notices I'm stealing bandwidth. Maybe I'll share some P2P porn or something :-p

there's a unsecure network around here in my neighborhood. I don't get on it though. I don't like stealing.
 
Stealing? Hardly. You're not depriving them of anything. It's not like they're paying any more for it because you're dling 10kb of data every min.
 
Thrice said:
Stealing? Hardly. You're not depriving them of anything. It's not like they're paying any more for it because you're dling 10kb of data every min.

It's not like the store owner will care about a $1.50 soda :rolleyes:
 
Thrice said:
Stealing? Hardly. You're not depriving them of anything. It's not like they're paying any more for it because you're dling 10kb of data every min.
I think you are confusing internet theft with satellite theft. Satellite theft makes no difference because you are simply receiving signals which are already in the air. Bandwidth theft makes a huge difference because you actually slow the network by actively making a bunch of requests on it.
 
Pengwuino said:
It's not like the store owner will care about a $1.50 soda :rolleyes:
I hear Wal-Mart now only prosecutes if the value stolen is greater than $25.
ShawnD said:
I think you are confusing internet theft with satellite theft. Satellite theft makes no difference because you are simply receiving signals which are already in the air. Bandwidth theft makes a huge difference because you actually slow the network by actively making a bunch of requests on it.
Slow it down a significant amount? Obviously it depends on the network. If mine could handle 500k & they weren't running bt all night I wouldn't really care.
 
Whatever. This was never about logic. This is about "thou shalt not steal", whatever the circumstances. If that's how you like it, fine. Just don't tell me it's based on reason.
 
Thrice said:
I hear Wal-Mart now only prosecutes if the value stolen is greater than $25.

Do you know how much stores lose because of shoplifting? I heard some statistics and it blew my mind! Makes you wonder what kind of people are out there...
 
If mine could handle 500k & they weren't running bt all night I wouldn't really care.
as long as you don't steel of mine, a feeble 32k.
i would like a wireless network to leadch off around here but tharee anit none. damn them!
 
  • #12
Pengwuino said:
blah blah blah. I never said everyone was a shoplifter.
It doesn't work even if you're only thinking about shoplifters. The total amount a store loses doesn't factor in when you're wondering how wrong it is to head out with that $1.50 soda. It's always the same amount whether the store's losing $10 a month or 10 million.
 
  • #13
ten million what?: banana boats?, elephants?(why is this used as a comon unknown unit)
 
  • #14
Elephants? Very well elephants it is.
 
  • #15
ten million elephants , that's a large family, Mafia related?
 
  • #16
Thrice said:
It doesn't work even if you're only thinking about shoplifters. The total amount a store loses doesn't factor in when you're wondering how wrong it is to head out with that $1.50 soda. It's always the same amount whether the store's losing $10 a month or 10 million.

What in the world are you talking about?
 
  • #17
Pengwuino said:
Do you know how much stores lose because of shoplifting? I heard some statistics and it blew my mind! Makes you wonder what kind of people are out there...

If I recall the old security consultations we had back when I worked in retail management, around 80% of the "shrinkage" is usually due to internal theft. Much bigger problem than shoplifting.
 
  • #18
This thread is full of hoods, it should be closed, least the penquin or others get the wrong signal, and no that fish is not free.
 
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
What in the world are you talking about?
You said: "It's not like the store owner will care about a $1.50 soda."

I said: "I hear Wal-Mart now only prosecutes if the value stolen is greater than $25."

You replied: "Do you know how much stores lose because of shoplifting? I heard some statistics and it blew my mind! Makes you wonder what kind of people are out there..."


My point is it doesn't matter how much stores lose. Even if they're all going bankrupt, you'd still only be taking a $1.50 soda or whatever.
 
  • #20
Thrice said:
Even if they're all going bankrupt, you'd still only be taking a $1.50 soda or whatever.

You...and some other guy who thinks he's only taking a $1.50 soda, and another guy who thinks the same thing, and so on. $1.50 quickly becomes quite a significant figure.
 
  • #21
when i worked at a grocery store, they had a huge number for shrinkage. stores account for it, and everyone who pays for their products pays a little extra to account for what's stolen.

anyway, I'm on a borrowed signal right now too. i don't have the internet at my new apt yet, so i just get it from my neighbors. if my neighbors didn't have it, i'd just go into town and find a signal. a lot of businesses here have it, almost the city of tempe is wireless. my roommate is installing the internet next week sometime, but if it was just me, i wouldn't even bother.oh, and soda's are only $1.25 here
 
  • #22
Thrice said:
You said: "It's not like the store owner will care about a $1.50 soda."

I said: "I hear Wal-Mart now only prosecutes if the value stolen is greater than $25."

You replied: "Do you know how much stores lose because of shoplifting? I heard some statistics and it blew my mind! Makes you wonder what kind of people are out there..."


My point is it doesn't matter how much stores lose. Even if they're all going bankrupt, you'd still only be taking a $1.50 soda or whatever.

Ok I caused some confusion here. I didn't mean to connect the shoplifting with the soda thing. I didn't think you were trying to make the idea that walmart only prosecutes above $25 as part of the argument. I thought you were just putting it out there as a "oh hey guys, by the way, did you know...". Then i pretty much thought "hey speaking of which, i heard blah blah blah" and threw that in there. I didn't think the amount a certain company prosecutes for had any real significance to weither or not stealing was good or bad.
 
  • #23
loseyourname said:
If I recall the old security consultations we had back when I worked in retail management, around 80% of the "shrinkage" is usually due to internal theft. Much bigger problem than shoplifting.
That's what I've heard too. Not an actual number but "most" of it is stolen by employees.

I don't even understand what you other guys are arguing about. It seems like one guy says "my wall is green" and the other guy replies "no way, the moon is made of cheese".
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
Ok I caused some confusion here. I didn't mean to connect the shoplifting with the soda thing. I didn't think you were trying to make the idea that walmart only prosecutes above $25 as part of the argument. I thought you were just putting it out there as a "oh hey guys, by the way, did you know...". Then i pretty much thought "hey speaking of which, i heard blah blah blah" and threw that in there. I didn't think the amount a certain company prosecutes for had any real significance to weither or not stealing was good or bad.
My apologies. I misunderstood.
 

Similar threads

Ubuntu 14.04, wireless network cannot connect
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Connect my Canon MX922 printer to my new wireless router
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
14K
Help me set-up a home network between my devices
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Set subnet mask to allow connections to two different class c networks
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Computer Experts: Secure Your Wireless Network
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Where I can find information on the Wireless Networking abilities of my laptop
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Troubleshooting Wireless Connectivity Issues with ndiswrapper on Ubuntu
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Troubleshooting Wireless Network Issues: Tips and Tricks
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
How can I find my WEP key on an existing wireless network?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Troubleshooting Unable to Access Router for Security Setup
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K