Yes, but in most cases, WiFi only needs the password once, then it automatically connects, so most users don't even realize that there is a password.

Also, people think that internet is slower over WiFi (ok, if you are in Japan and get 100Mbs internet).

well some peoples internet is slower over wifi maybe because there's little piggys piggybackin..

In regards to TOS and FON: That would be on the owner of the broadband servive. You wouldn't be liable.

In all honesty I have "stolen" WIFI access for Maemomapper when on the road and away from the hotel. However I agree that doing VOIP or other high bandwidth stuff over someone elses line without permission is really rude and I would bet is definitely illegal even if actual access to the wifi point itself isn't covered under the jurisdictions definition of "theft."

For those who claim that leaving a wifi point unlocked and broadcasting is equal to "not theft." I suggest hopping into a running car with unlocked doors and see how far that "freely accessible" argument holds up. Theft is not defined by accessiblity but by permission to access.

There's really nothing you can compare it to. Except for air I guess... If John pays for fresh air to be pumped into his house and some of it leaks out and drifts across the street will I be stealing for breathing some of it?

They aren't really losing anything when you access it. They're just not receiving as much for a brief amount of time.

So if joe blow parks outside of your property to make a quick phone call/check email and or send a message/ whatever for 5 to 10 minutes. Is that really such a bad thing? What was stolen?? What loss does the "victim" incur? Their internet is unlimited, they have no loss and in 5 to 10 min. they're able to download once again at normal speeds or if you're not doing bandwidth heavy activities like checking your e-mail or looking up an address or imming they wont notice jack for loss.

So who are you really ripping off here? Maybe the ISP but that's it as far as I can see.

is that a serious analogy or are you just ****ing w/me?

Here in the UK, there have been several well publicised cases where Police have been called to investigate people loitering in cars, and just in the street. Subsequently these people have been prosecuted for stealing bandwidth. So in the UK at least jumping onto an unsecured wifi network without permission is clearly defined as theft.

your tablet connecting to the wifi, and downloading a few hundred KB of tiles for maemomapper would probably go unnoticed, but any more visible than that, and you would be in bother.

If someone gave permission, by naming their connection "please use" then that would be OK. Leaving it at the factory default is not granting permission to use.

i thought the default setting is wep key required.

Well dick, see the post 26. And it's not just in the UK.

sunny: Your Air analogy falls flat. Air, unlike wifi is something a person has no means of NOT breathing. You and I have no control over which molecule enters our bodies. WIFI on the other hand requires the deliberate seeking of, connecting to, and then subsequent use of a signal generated by someone's wifi router. If you're argument was simply that picking up the signal is unavoidable then I would agree. There is no theft where there is simply picking up a signal. Every act after that requires the purpose action of the user. That is what constitutes the theft. Again back to the car. Simply observing the running, unlocked car is not theft. One cannot help but see the unlocked and running car. However to then go and sit in the car is tresspassing. The car does not belong to you, it is the personal property of some other person. The fact that it is running and open for anyone to sit in does not make the entry into the vehicle any less of tresspass than if it were locked and off. In the case it was locked and off then you'd have breaking and entering.

Notice I did not accuse WIFI 'users" as buglars (breaking and entering) I said they stole. Difference.

Had the person who sat in the open and running vehicle then drove off the vehicle it would be theft. That the vehicle is running and open does not make it any less so.

A users open WIFI point is like an on and running vehicle. You are free to observe it but actual use of it without the owners permission constitutes theft. That many (or most) people don't mind doesn't make it any less so. It simply means that those who don't care don't press charges.

It honestly depends, this argument has been played out so many times (Slashdot, digg, reddit, etc.etc..) with the result of a stand still, depending on the scenario you use.

For example, you have the car analogy (seen above). You can have the property analogy (if my neighbor's wifi goes onto my land, is it then mine to use?). Then the whole issue of connecting is another issue. What if you have it setup to automatically connect to any open wifi? (Say your home is setup that way and you take your device roaming).

The courts would likely find in whoever owns the Wifi usually, but then again the court and laws themselves I rarely bother with (to easily are they bought in this day and age. I just follow what I believe is lawful and don't bother with what is unlawful and shouldn't be).

if you want to use a vehicle as an analogy then don't use a car... I'd use the railways as an example because you can quite possibly jump on and take it for miles! It costs the locomotion industry nothing for you to hop on a empty car and ride for free as with the internet user... their access is unlimited for what they pay you're costing them nothing extra. its just a matter of principle, a dumb principle.

Now if you were always connected to the guy's wifi then I would see how there could be an issue because you'd be taking a great deal of his bandwidth and he'd probably notice your presence. I'm not talking about sitting on someone's connection hording files night and day via bittorrent lol

You tell me who it hurts and why it hurts them and maybe i can start to see things your way.