How good are people at making ethical evaluations?
Not very, I think. Here’s a case in point. Wired.com currently has an article about a guy who was busted for tapping into a cafe’s wireless network while sitting in his car. Here’s the story:
A Michigan man got snagged by the cops and slapped with a $400 fine for using an open wireless connection at a cafe without purchasing a drink. He was in his car in the parking lot checking his email when an intrepid lawmen apprehended him. He was charged with “Unauthorized Use of Computer Access,” according to WOOD TV. However, that statute seems to require that the person be using the access to commit a crime. They might also have hit the guy with “Obtaining telecommunications services with intent to avoid charge,” a statute so broad that anyone who tethers their phone to a laptop without carrier permission would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Where it gets interesting is that Wired has started an analogy contest: complete the phrase “Using open wireless connections without permission is like…”
So what is using someone else’s open bandwidth actually like? Is there a good real world analogy for using an open connection without having permission? Use the nifty Reddit-powered tool below to vote up and submit your own analogy.
Now from a Buddhist view this man’s actions were unethical because he was taking something that was not freely given, in that the wireless network was provided for customers and was an incentive to come in and purchase something. He was too cheap to shell out for a cup of coffee, which is pretty cheap, really. Now the fact that the wireless network was not password protected is irrelevant here, because this guy could easily go in once, buy a coffee, and ask what the password is. Then he could return and use the network whenever he wanted. It would be inconvenient for the staff and bona fide customers to change the password on a daily basis to deter this, and in fact having a password would be an inconvenience in itself.
So his actions were unethical — in a mild way because he probably wasn’t hogging much bandwidth — although it’s not the kind of thing I’d think should be illegal.
So the analogy I submitted was “…using the restroom. Using an open wireless network is like walking into a cafe and using their bathroom without asking if they mind. It’s cheap and rude, but hardly a crime.”
I think this is an exact analogy. If you’re going to use a cafe’s restroom without making a purchase you’re using something that’s clearly intended for customers without bothering to become a customer, just as our driver did. You’re also potentially making life a little more difficult for paying customers, just as the driver was potentially slowing down the connection speeds. It’s polite to ask if you can use the restroom under such circumstances, and kind of rude not to.
But some of the suggested analogies seem to completely miss the point, ethically speaking. Here are the three that have so far received most votes.
Using open wireless connections without permission is like…
listening to your neighbor’s noise polluting stereo and enjoying it.
Well, both are forms of broadcast, but the similarity ends there. You don’t physically consume music by listening to it, whereas you do use up broadband by tapping into it. It’s unavoidable that you hear the music, while it’s a conscious choice to tap into the network. The word “enjoying” is misleading because it’s ambiguous. “Enjoy” can mean to “make use of” or it can mean “to take pleasure in.” I think it’s been used in a way here that might be deliberately misleading, because the writer is equating “taking pleasure in” music with “making use of” a wireless network, while the two activities are not at all similar.
taking items/junk left in the alley or on the side of the street. Using an open wireless network is like taking items left on the street-side or in the alley, that someone has left out. If they wanted the items, they would not be out of their control, and available for anyone to use or take. If you don’t want someone using your wireless network, secure it. Don’t be an idiot.
Junk left in an alley has clearly been declared unwanted, while a wireless network has clearly not. In addition, saying basically “If you don’t want people to steal it, lock it up” would excuse people who buy coffee and then go home with the cup, sugarbowl, and salt and pepper shakers.
using your neighbor’s runoff water to water your potted plants. Using an Open WiFi Connection is like using your neighbor’s runoff water to make your potted tomatoes grow well.
If the water has run off your neighbor’s land onto yours, it’s clearly not his property any more and you can use it as you see fit. This driver was of course sitting in the parking lot of the cafe, so it’s more like he went into his neighbor’s yard and helped himself to the contents of the water barrel. But more to the point is that again, you’re diminishing by some extent the cafe’s resources and using something that was clearly meant for customers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not outraged by people using open wireless networks. I’ve done it myself and I don’t think there’s anything seriously wrong with it. I’m more interested in the kinds of faulty reasoning that people use to justify their behavior (and there were many more examples in the article, but I’m not (quite) obsessive enough to pick them all to pieces).
It is icky to sit outside a building using someone else’s wireless network. it’s kind of rude. It’s a cheap way to behave, when the alternative is popping in for a coffee. I don’t think it should be criminal, but I also don’t think people should be completely excusing by using faulty faulty reasoning, especially reasoning that would support helping yourself to anything that isn’t locked up.
4 Responses to “How good are people at making ethical evaluations?”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “How good are people at making ethical evaluations?,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: May 22 2007
Tags and categories
Category: Apropos of nothing, Religion & Society
I’m sort of at odds w/ part of hypothesis, because I think right-thinking can predicate wrong action. In other words, I think people can do wrong things in good faith. And I think there is a kind of time and the use of money element. Here is what I mean. I try to make generosity my intent. Knowing that I will commit random acts of kindness whenever possible, I do not see myself as a taker but as a giver. I have used a restaurant rest-room without asking and out of necessity. I have also tipped, donated and patronized gratuitously and when I can. Businesses know that part of their success is budgeting for loss or failure, so in a way the wireless is freely given as part of a common-sense business model. And if it is taken by who makes it a point to give then the coffee shop is participating in a wholesome pay-it-forward scheme vs a raisin-splitting (this is mind and that is yours) exercise, which is less ethical than the former. They say that a buddha w/ the proper intention can even kill. I get that there is a pilfering that is the product of a small mind, but I think there is taking within the largesse of the spirit of give and take that is wholesome.
I tried (but perhaps failed) to make it clear that I’m not actually very interested in the ethics of using open wireless networks — I do it all the time myself. The other day, for example, I couldn’t find a street I knew was somewhere in the vicinity and so I whipped out my iPod Touch, used Google maps, and was on my way. I think it’s crazy to criminalize that kind of activity and barring the act of intrusively sitting outside someone’s house using their network I don’t think it’s at all harmful and barely qualifies as unethical (from a very strict Buddhist point of view).
I’m more interested in the way people rationalize their activities. One of the most popular analogies given, for example, is that if something isn’t locked up then I have a right to take it. I find that a curious and disturbing argument, and it’s even more curious and disturbing that it’s a popular argument. I’m interested in how well-equipped people are to think ethically, and in some of the observations I’ve made (for example in that Wired exercise or in listening to business students try and fail to discuss ethical issues) I’ve noticed that a lot of people sometimes don’t even recognize that there’s an ethical dimension to a situation, and even if they do their thinking will align with what they want to do.
I’m not saying I’m a paragon, just that I think as a society we don’t “do” ethical discussion very well.
A potential problem with the “give and take” position — and one I’ve seen in action — is that the amount of giving can be overestimated relative to the amount of taking. An example was during an online discussion where a woman was being hammered for trying to prevent people using her photographs without her consent. Some people thought she should be grateful for the exposure — even though there was no attribution given. These people overestimated what was being given to the photographer and underestimated what was being taken from her. (And closer to home, I tend to overestimate how much housework I do).
Of course the more ethical sensitivity a person has, the better the position they are in to make a realistic assessment of the balance of giving and taking. Personally I like that way of looking at things. The Buddha in the Dhammapada advised us to live like bees — in taking from the flower a bee is pollinating and thus giving. It’s a very natural exchange, much like the way you portray your own life.
I sense the bigger and more troubling point you are making is about people, kids in particular, being oblivious to the ethical dimension. There can be such an ingrained and cultivated sense of entitlement that it crowds out and leaves no room for ethical consideration. Ethics imply relation to others and the rules of engagement and relationship. By over focusing and indulging ourselves and our youth, we become painfully self cherishing–hungry ghosts looking to rationalize stuffing our bellies with what is not ours and growing hungrier and grabbier as we realize that nothing we take in is satisfying us. We are oblivious to all but our own wants and increasingly isolated from the nurturance of respectful interaction. My English mother was big on manners–on please and thank you–of acknowledging even the smallest deed or favor. I hounded my American children until they nailed down their manners. “If you don’t feel like saying thank you, maybe the giver won’t feel like giving next time.” Reciprocity–give and take. I see your point that in a world where “take” is on the rise, hijacking someone’s wireless looks unethical and like it is growing out of a culture of self-centeredness. With that, I have taken enough of the space you have kindly given. Thank you for the exchange.
Yes, that’s exactly my observation and concern — that many people simply are oblivious that there is an ethical dimension to questions like this, or if they do try to discuss ethics they do it in a way that doesn’t show much ethical regard (“If it’s not tied down it’s not wrong for me to take it”).
Thanks for commenting! I have to say I yearn for this sort of thoughtfulness in the comments on Wildmind! We get a number of “spiritual tech support” questions, which is absolutely fine and even greatly welcomed, but little real dialog.