Microsoft recently gave away laptops, each loaded with the new Windows Vista operating system and valued at over US $2000, to about 90 bloggers who regularly write about technology. Some bloggers were happy to accept the computers, while others asserted that Microsoft was using the PCs as bribes to get good press. For its part, Microsoft said the computers were given away so the bloggers could evaluate and review them.

Should bloggers be held to the same ethical standards as traditional journalists, who generally cannot accept expensive gifts from the companies they cover?

Responses to January's Question, "Borrowing Internet Access"

Cellphone manufacturers have begun selling phones specially equipped for making free calls using wireless Internet networks, including any unprotected networks owned by your unknowing neighbors. While critics say the practice of tapping into someone’s unprotected network is unethical, supporters say that because the calls are free, no harm, no foul.

How would you feel about someone using the Internet service you pay for to make free calls?

My Choice

If I don’t want people using my wireless Internet service, I can protect the connection with security software such as Wired Equivalent Privacy encryption. And if I don’t mind other people using my service, I can leave it open. The choice should be mine.

Not everyone has the knowledge to reconfigure their routers so by default they are open, but manufacturers can make securing them easier. Some wireless routers come closed by default.

Manuel Noriega
Guatemala City

Worst Cases

If there is no agency to control a credit system to repay any costs to Internet access owners, I cannot agree with the use of unprotected networks. Several worst-case scenarios are possible:

• The sheer number of calls can bring down the available bandwidth, causing the owner of the network a problem with Internet access.

• If someone uses voice over Internet Protocol to exploit a system, the owner could be liable for the attack.

• If the Internet access owner uses a pay-per-use system, the amount of data transferred can rack up a huge bill.

We don’t walk into a house just because the door is open. Besides being a crime, it is unethical to access another person’s network without permission. A neutral organization such as the IEEE should establish a clearinghouse to ensure proper, legal, and ethical treatment of this issue.

Fausto Oliveira
Lisbon

Do the Right Thing

There is an issue in high-density housing (condos, apartment buildings, and town houses). If we all have wireless access points in our units, we may not be able to connect to our own access points because the airwaves are full of signals from the others. To do the right thing, those who live in the area should collaborate to provide Internet access to everyone wirelessly with some type of planned infrastructure. They could share the cost of a higher speed and quality Internet connection. If they aren’t interested in doing the right thing, they can walk around their complex and “search“ for an unprotected wireless access point and surf away.

I would have a problem with someone “borrowing“ my Internet connection, and I wouldn’t leave my network wide open. People with these access points should firewall them off from the Internet and their local home networks to protect themselves.

George Morgan
Fairfax, Va.

Internet Configuration 101

The responsibility of securing wireless networks ultimately falls on the Internet subscriber. Of course I would be peeved if someone had been freeloading off my service, but I would also feel rather stupid for leaving it open to intrusion in the first place. Products should be made convenient for the home user. Typically they should automatically find and connect securely to a home network with minimal or no configuration. The alternative is unacceptable because most consumers wouldn’t know how to configure them.

Andrew Huard
Simi Valley, Calif.

Do Not Enter

“Borrowing” Internet access is unethical. Just because my wireless network may be unprotected, it does not follow that it’s available for anyone to use. If I leave my front door unlocked, it does not give permission for just anyone to enter. In addition, my DSL service has a maximum throughput for which I pay monthly. Each piggybacked call would decrease the amount of throughput available for my family to use—and that is stealing.

Ed Logue
Palmdale, Calif.

Read the Box

I’m in favor of free access. Most connections make no charge for extra bandwidth, and voice traffic isn’t that bad anyway. It’s easy enough to add security to a wireless network if a person really wants to. The instructions are written all over the box of every wireless router, so it’s not like people are uninformed. Of course, users must be aware that their conversations are not secure.

David Caldarelli
Markham, Ont., Canada

A Traffic Tariff

If I consciously left my wireless infrastructure open, I wouldn’t mind others using it for free phone calls. I do, however, restrict access to prevent my line being used for illegal file sharing. However, in Kazakhstan, for example, many Internet-access tariffs are still based on the traffic (versus a flat fee). That is why it is the responsibility of the phone users to care about this. I don’t think banning the manufacture of such phones would be a good idea.

Baurzhan Ismagulov
Munich

No Free Lunch

Using anything paid for and provided by someone else is clearly unethical, even if you believe it does no harm. In the first place, you may not be able to judge whether it does harm or not, and you have no right to make such a decision unilaterally. In the second place, doing so always has an indirect impact. For example, the service provider may experience higher loads than expected and will be financially harmed. Other users may be harmed—if only slightly—by the poorer service as a result of the longer load times. There is no such thing as a free lunch: if you’re not paying for it, someone else is.

Glen Seeds
Nepean, Ont., Canada

Okay, but No Peeking

I have Wi-Fi Internet access at home with Protected Access encryption. Occasionally, I have used unsecured Wi-Fi Internet access from others.

As more DSL and high-speed cable Internet subscriptions are offered for a flat monthly fee, I think it would be nice if all users opened up their Wi-Fi connections for others to use free of charge. This would mean “free” Wi-Fi access in many places, and we would all benefit from that. The assumption is, of course, that the owners of the building or house would pick up the bill.

What’s more, I think that the data transported by both the owner and guest users should be secure, that is, protected from peeking by others.

Erik Jan Marinissen
Enzerink, Netherlands

Be Responsible

I say it’s a fantastic idea! I would love to get my hands on one of those phones.

First of all, if people leave their networks unprotected they obviously intend for them to be used by others. Ignorance of the capabilities of their network devices is no excuse. The responsibility of owning and operating such a device should not be any less than that of owning and operating a firearm. Notice the key word here is responsibility.

Lastly, I hope such endeavors by cellphone manufacturers will spur wireless telecommunications companies to rethink their current practice of nickel-and-diming their customers to death for every feature, such as ring tones and games.

Kyle Ross
Boise, Idaho

Free Access for All

I’ve borrowed someone else’s Internet connection when I’ve been away from home and used it with my laptop. The access is free and generally has no effect on the subscriber. If they leave the link unencrypted then they have to know others will access it.

I also think that open networks should be set up for general use. My local library has rolled out free access at all the branches. It is a nice social convenience.

Nick Radonic
Derwood, Md.