Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racnad
My response in this situation would be that I would not take the iPod because...
I'd want to live in a world where I could leave my coat in a room witihout worry about people taking valuables from the pockets. Therefore, it would be inconsistent of me to take things from other people's coats.
One of the principles I live by is that if it is OK for me to do something, it's OK for others to do it too. I wouldn't want my iPod stolen, so I shouldn;t steal from others.
The example of connecting to an unsecured wireless network is not applicable. It is unlikely that your unauthorized use of that network deprives the owner of the use of that network. You can't say the same about the iPod.
Another principle has to do with agreements you make with others and being true to your word. When we are at work, when we're customers at places of business, there are contractual, verbal, and tacit agreements in play, and should be concious of them. Don't make agreements you will not keep, and keep the ones you make.
In my iPod example, when you are a guest at someone's house at a party, there are tacid agreements in place. You may sit on their furnature, you may use their bathroom, you may use their toilet paper. You may not go through their bedroom drawers, you may not steal their valuables or the valuables of other guests. To do so violates tacit social agreements.
|
Stealing is stealing, is it not? If you're not going to stop at using an internet service that you are not paying for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use, why stop at using an iPod that you did not pay for and that you don't have the subscriber's permission to use? Besides, given enough piggybackers, it does slow up your connection, plus whatever illegal activity you do while on his network puts him at risk of running afoul of the law (pirated songs, child porn, it'll all get traced back to his IP and you can get away scott-free while he has to pony up for Johnny Cochrane).
You can't condemn one kind of theft while condoning the other just because you don't see the immediate implications for what you're doing.