Trying to build a case against 'warchalking'

I've been thinking a lot about "warchalking" recently, which is strange because until last week I'd never heard of the word. Warchalking is a direct descendant of "wardialing," in which people would program their computers to dial around to find unlisted modems.

Free IT resource Hear how top CIOs turn change into a competitive advantage. Sponsored by HP Free IT resource Try Sun servers, workstations and storage products free for 60-days. Sponsored by Sun Microsystems

In the modern version, "wardrivers" circulate throughout a community in an automobile -- some have even upgraded to airplanes -- to find and map unprotected wireless networks. Warchalkers then make chalk marks very much like the old hobo symbols, telling where the networks are and providing other useful information.

The reader who alerted me to this practice had decided that it was immoral and thought that attempts to justify it were "bizarre." So, of course, I had to have a look for myself (check out more on warchalking for yourself at www.warchalking.org ). I don't think the attempts to justify it are at all bizarre, although they're arguable. But I find myself unable to make a solid case against it.

Making chalk marks on a sidewalk seems benign enough, so it would be better to determine whether the underlying practice -- using an open wireless network to access the Internet -- is, in and of itself, unethical. So rather than examining warchalking, I'll examine that use.

My initial reaction to the idea was the same one I imagine most people would have -- I was against it. That probably stems from some kind of a Puritan ethic buried deep within most of us that it's simply wrong for someone to get something for nothing. We just don't like that idea and will come up with all sorts of reasons -- invent them if necessary -- to prove that it's wrong.

To examine the ethical thrust we need to start with several assumptions. We have to assume that those using someone else's wireless connections are engaged in morally benign activities. They're not breaking into someone's system, sending spam, corrupting files, overwhelming the available bandwidth, or engaging in terrorist or other criminal activities. If they were, then we would be having a different discussion.

So, let's suppose someone with a wireless card finds an open connection at my house. He stops, uses my Internet connection to check his e-mail and the stock reports, and moves on. What harm has been done? Who has been deprived of anything? What he did was most likely totally transparent to me. Even if I were working on the Internet, I most likely never knew he used the connection. The person has deprived me of nothing.

I have already paid my ISP for the privilege of being connected 24/7. My ISP has been deprived of nothing. They have their money and what difference does it make to them if one or two people have used my wireless network? It would have made no difference to them if I had invited the person in to use the connection or if he used it without my knowledge. I can have as many connections on that network as I desire, or at least until I decide that multiple users are degrading my response time significantly.

How is this any different from the case in which I pay my cable company for digital music? While I'm out, I leave the music on, and my neighbor -- who doesn't pay for the digital music -- sits on his patio, which adjoins mine, and listens to my music. He deprives me of nothing and deprives the cable company of nothing, except perhaps a potential customer.

You could probably try to construct a case that someone using open wireless networks is in fact depriving the ISP of a customer, but that's highly unlikely. I think there are very few people, especially those with a laptop and a wireless card, who would be satisfied with sitting on the sidewalk surfing the Internet. More than likely these would be people who already have their own connection, but use this method when away from home. So, I think the potential for people using this as their sole internet connection is extremely small.

How is this different from someone tapping into my phone line and using my phone to dial up a connection? Well, it's significantly different, and a lot of that difference comes from the physical nature of the act. In fact, I'd feel differently about someone using my wireless network if they broke into my house to use it. That would be wrong for a lot of reasons unrelated to simply using the network.

But once we put something into the air, we begin to lose control and claims over it. I would be hard-pressed to tell people they can't stop on the sidewalk in front of my house and enjoy the aroma from the baking bread. I can't claim that they're stealing the aroma. As long as what they do doesn't impinge on my enjoying the aroma, or the bread, they are free to enjoy it too, the same as my neighbor who enjoys my digital music without depriving me of its pleasure.

Part of the problem is that many people, as well as businesses and government agencies, have not put sufficient protection on their wireless networks, allowing the practice of walk-by wireless users to flourish. In fact, the Secret Service has begun its own form of wardriving and warchalking in Washington in an effort to find government agencies -- especially critical ones -- with open and exposed wireless connections.

However, as long as the walk-by users aren't accessing the open Internet connections to do anything harmful or illegal, I'm having a hard time figuring out why someone would think it unethical. It would seem that those people who want to secure their networks can, and should, do so. Then we could assume that those who leave their networks available to warchalkers on purpose -- as some people are reported to do -- don't really mind sharing their resources with others.

Write to Carlton Vogt at ethics_matters@infoworld.com. To discuss any of these issues, you can go to the Ethics Matters forum at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics .