Ethics

Do unto others, as you would have done unto you.

and

a good transaction(sale, contract etc.) has tangible benefit for both sides.

and

Never write something you wouldn't want published in a newspaper.

and

Never do something you would be embarrased to admit in front of your mother.

Are they simplistic? - of course, but they cover quite a few situations.

Ethics in IT should have a grounding in ethics in other areas.

James

The reductionist may cite the "Golden Rule" solving this issue but the Golden Rule relies on a tricky premise, that everyone would, at the heart, like to be treated the same.

In the real world of different religions and cultural roots deeply changing the end result of many practices, there are in fact a lot of people who would see doing unto others as they would have it be done to them quite differently. For instance would you rather have an electric chair, go scott free or be beheaded as a criminal and how would you treat others to a condemned death? On a smaller scale would you rather be offered alchohol or fruit juice on entering a hosts home- should it be what is good for the host?

In the case of wi-fi the golden rule doesn't work because different people want to be treated differently. Some would want others to grant them access while some would like it denied. Since theyu would grant what they themselves desire, well sometimes it would work and soemtimes it would be disasterous.

Kant tried to solve this by taking any purpose outside the intrisic reward of holding the ethic itself out of the ethic so you could use Kant's Categorical Imperative in which the crux is: "only act on a maxim you would rationally want to apply to everything" or another way to say it would be that if you could universally will that everyone did a thing then it would be ethical, but if not, then it would be unethical.

In the case of wi-fi Kant presents a difficulty as it tends to point one in an all-or-nothing arrangement where either complete free public access or some level of restraint to invade private access would be, perhaps, best. Of course, a lot of people would complain the other side is following a lesser position ethically either way.

Perhaps Aristotle would be the way to go here. The Golden Mean. Don't be taking other people for a free ride or abusing them, but then if you find a hotspot that is open and appears free and you just want to find something on Mapquest quick, well, just appreciate that someone has helped you achieve the connection :)

I've seen WAY too many people these days, in and out of IT whose general philosophy seems to be "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you." Or, that big corporations are all screwing you, so it's okay to steal from them.

That just doesn't fit into my upbringing... If it doesn't belong to you, or doesn't have a sign on it that says "FREE" leave it alone. I'm the type who will track down the guy who dropped his wallet and it'll still have ALL his money in it.

Unfortunately, we are devolving into a uncivilized society where the instant gratification and ends based analysis are the rule.

There was 1 proper post in that whole Wireless LAN thread.
It was pointed out that under Federal law, it is illegal to connect to any open wireless LAN.

"Under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 United States Code ? 1030), such hijacking constitutes unlawful "access," which is the first element of the crime."

No, ethics and the law can be 2 different things.

Still, the first part of IT ethics is to follow Federal, State, and local laws.
Then, the rules of your company.

The people I know who are held up as paragons of ethical behavior have several common traits:

They obey the law.

They respect the rights, opinions and property of others.

They do not search for loopholes in the law or their daily lives.

They will quit their job rather than violate their ethical standards.

For ethical people, any gray areas in their lives or thoughts are very narrow, and tend to mirror the tough ethical challenges of our time.

So, I have to agree with you. Looking at the large number of peers who posted that it is fully acceptable to use any open access point, I have to agree there is a dilemma in personal ethics, at least with those who posted to that thread.

Until I read the post about the Federal law, I felt that the specific situation in that thread was a little bit gray.

Still, it is now clear that it is not ethical to use any WLAN that you are not a member of.

Chas

The edited portion:

For those of you who cannot look 4 posts down and see my further information:

I copied the section in quotes above from a post in the thread that prompted this thread.
I SHOULD have read the actual law first instead of just quoting from another post.

Please check for follow up posts before jumping to conclusions.

Chas

.
I agree with you. I saw the thread, but didn't read many because I assumed most would be "serves them right". I have been involved in several of these sort of discussions, and my premise has always been, we are given a very large responsibility to act ethically. We don't have a Bar, or NSCC or FAA or anyone looking over our shoulder, but we should have some code of ethics.

Most of my working life has been spent in Financial environments. I have access to loads of information for clients that I must treat with respect, not to mention the employees of the company. How many of us can get at any email in any users box? Lots, right? How many SVP, or Cxx can do the same? Our ability to touch almost any bit of data floating around our networks is the reason that it is a absolute MUST that we behave ethically. When we behave as hacks, we diminish our own profession.

How then to deal with a situation like the "open" WAP? Well the eathical thing to do would be, to the best of our ability, find the owner, inform them of the problem and any additional information we were able to glean, and not use it!

Sounds peachy, but its right.

TBR

would it be ethical, to use a wireless access to find local home based wireless access points that are not secured, find who owns, where they are, and then contact them to point out that thier access point is publicly available?

one of my neighbors has been getting online, doing major amounts of downloading, through unlocked wireless connections from neighboring buildings. he was actually bragging about doing so, and locking one point by changing admin password / login so he can't be cut off.

definately illegal activity.

the capability to be really unethical, I've always gone for being visibly ethical in my professional life at least.

Three rules I'm religious about though.
Don't cheat your customers, they are paying.
Don't cheat your friends, they won't forgive you.
Don't cheat yourself, it's stupid.

As for the wireless,that's a sort of asumption of competency for me. If I can access somesone's corporate lan, I assume it was intentional, my next door neighbours, I'd go tell him.

There have been instances in the news of people reporting flaws in software and security holes in networks that got sued and/or prosecuted. I wish I had some links handy for you to point it out, but at the moment I'm sort of at a loss for what search string to use at Google. to find examples.

I don't know whether anyone being so sued and/or prosecuted has lost the case, but I do know that just getting dragged to court, win or lose, can have a significant negative effect on someone's life. It's the opposite of "It was an honor just being nominated." Even without much chance of losing your case, it provides a fairly effective demotivation for someone that would otherwise act (with the best of intentions) as unpaid security auditors for corporations.

Oh, wait, there's the very obvious example of Randal L. Schwartz. He's a highly respected programmer (particularly well-known in the Perl developer community) and teacher of computer-related skills. He co-authored several of the best-known programming texts out there, including most of the O'Reilly line of Perl books (yes, including the infamous Camel and Llama books, among a great many others). If you want more information about him, I'm sure you can find him at a great many online communities where he's active, including blogging and programming communities.

In brief, Randal Schwartz was working for Intel as a contractor. He was prosecuted for a number of activities including both things he was doing in the course of his duties and things he did specifically to demonstrate some security flaws at Intel that he discovered in the course of his duties there. Nothing he did was intended to do any harm to Intel, and none of it actually did any harm, but Oregon computer crime laws had him convicted and sentenced to 480 hours community service, five years probation, 90 days jail time (first deferred then, after a not quite successful appeal, suspended), and $68,000 in "restitution" to Intel. His legal fees have been in the range of at least $170,000. This is a guy whose writings have probably been read by the people responsible for ninety percent or more of the World Wide Web. He's a knowledgeable and respected professional, a nice guy, a consummate expert, and a good Samaritan that was trying to help the company for which he was working who ended up facing jail time instead. He's now a felon, according to our government.

He's the canonical example of how being a good Samaritan in the IT industry can potentially ruin your life. He's managed to get by, to drag himself back up from the pit into which he'd been dropped, but he shouldn't have had to do that.

I'm sure you can find more information on the case by plugging search strings like "randal schwartz intel crime" (without quotes) into Google.

Well, I haven't read this thread except for the first comment, however, I figure I'll step on some peoples toes big time, then they'll admit (under their breath of course), that I'm probably right for most people (though not for them, of course).

With the way that people treat other people in the office (office politics), I don't see how most people that I have worked with could ever even start to talk about ethics.

Of course, there are ethics BETWEEN companies (to the extent that ethics can be enforced by law), however, with the experiences I've had/seen, I would have to say that ethics is about the lowest priority on most peoples plate, UNTIL it comes time to talk about it, then everyone should be up front and honest, etc.....

Look at what the discussion on these forums... how many people have stated things such as, "It's sometimes better for the clients not to know how we do this", or "what do you do when your boss tells you to do something that you know is wrong?" and a lot of people answer with "just do it, and if you get caught, make sure you have it documented so that you don't get in trouble for it."

Ethics is (according to Webster.com): "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation."

As soon as you start using the "we have to do this to CYA", or "go with the flow", then we have diverged from the ethical way, which means doing what is good based upon our moral duty and obligation.

You sign up for a company, do what is best for the company. Take pride in your work, do right, and you'll eventually get fired/laid off for not being politically correct, and for stepping on toes of the people who want you to do something which is not exactly in the best interest of the company, but rather for themselves.

For all of you who don't think I'm talking about you, simply think about it.... Have you ever said something like "I have to do this so that so-and-so doesn't have any ammunition against me". If so, evaluate whether you did that action for yourself, or because it was your duty to do good for the company.

just my 2 cp worth.

I always tell the end user and who ever else is involved what I'm doing to cure a problem that has arisen. I never do any work without first telling the people what I'm attempting to do or what I expect to happen. Although there are exceptions to this that is the common thing that I do personally and I do not have a problem with it. Of course they may not be understood what I'm saying but at least I do try to put it as simply as possible and at least I've told them.

The only time I've ever refused to do something was to alter an IM account to send a copy of all messages to the owner as that person already had access to this information and if they wanted to use it as evidence in a court action after dismissing the person for abusing the system they didn't need real time access.

However they where not interested in sacking the young girl that just wanted it for the kicks and to me that was even worse particuarly when they had told her that any IM that she received personally would be private and confidential.

Col

of a discussion I started and half the people flamed me for suggesting there be ethics at all.

For those who would like to see some kind of ethical standards in IT, here is some beginnings:

http://sageweb.sage.org/ethics.mm

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ethics/

http://www.brook.edu/ITS/CEI/CEI_HP.HTM

By Ethics it is generally meant "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation" (1rst definition Webster Online) but a second definition from the same source is more specific and may apply here:"the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group"

Right away you will notice this general definition is distinctly Dualistic in nature and when applied to Western thought you don't really get (or at least want) grey areas. We want Right or Wrong- to know which it is and act on our moral obligation. Then we have a "yardstick" to measure whether or not we act on what is right.

What is encouraged in Western society can be quite different however. Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus. Most people believe this was ethical- in fact quite the moral thing to do- and she is praised for it today. Jesus broke Jewish Law constantly- healing on the Sabbath etc. Speeding to get a person with a snakebite to the hospital- a million people and scenarios where in the first definition it may be proper and even heroic to break the law for a moral principle that correctly overrides it. With the exception: " I broke into wi-fi to save a life" I cannot think of a single instance, however, where it would be morally prudent to do so. It is different to connect rahter than break in though, and this is where I see the real question: " How can you tell if you are on a public or private WAP?" Of course, that is not so exciting a headline though...

The second definition may be more applicible here: "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" we are, after all, a group of IT professionals and there should be some standards.

In fact, I have found the #1 reason people I work for hire a particular IT worker, especially at Admin or above levels is specifically their estimation of integrity and honesty. Despite what people have said about every job being politicol being true to a point, most businesses know what incredible damage a dishonest IT worker can do to their business.

Addressing politics at work I would say this. You can be politically savvy and honest. It requires some tact and discipline in presentation at times, but they are not mutually exclusive. Honesty, at times also means knowing not only how, but when and to who to present something. Sometimes when honesty doesn't work it is because it is presented arrogantly, for self rewards or as a hammer. The fact that this doesn't work is not a fault of honesty. Also, sometimes the intention may be good, but the skills of the presentor are not polished. This is something to constantly work on to get into and thrive in management.

Back to ethics in IT as an industry. Here are some good ideas:

http://onlineethics.org/com/index.html

but I would say this is usually dictated not by the industry, but by the company you work for in the real world.

So, as far as the wi-fi question, I believe for now it is addressed 2 ways. The first is individually, where I am afraid in the west it is generally situational in a world that desires to define everything as Bad or Good. Still, the existing laws should of course be followed by the prudent individual except possibly in rare circumstances where it is seen as quite heroic to break the law for good reasons. (No wonder kids wanting to be seen as doing something important over-ride the law in an attempt to impress their society!)

The second way is to find out what your company, or other group position is on this unless the IT world gravitates towards a single ethical oversite body that is generally accepted and ascribed to. Personally, I do not see this coming as the speed at which IT progresses makes it very very hard to unionize or otherwise create powerful groups.

I did answer:"something against which all situations can be rated" with three possible choices in another post here: The Golden Rule, The Categorial Imperative and The Golden Mean were offered. There are, of course, many others, but a clear industry position has yet to develop IMO.

I wish it was that simple. Even if you haven't done provable damage, you can get the shaft. There are criminal legalities as well as the civil legalities, and you don't have to do any damage to suffer at the hands of criminal court.

Besides, the definition of "damage" is quite different for a lawyer than it is for those of us just trying to get through our days without having to deal with the judicial system.

Typically, it's not actual threat to the company that prompts that sort of legal reprisal, anyway. It's usually somebody high up the food chain that doesn't like to be "embarrassed" by having the lack of effective network security pointed out. The spiteful response, then, is to squash the good Samaritan who offers to help fix the matter.

Said that going through your business supplied email account was totally fair game.

It came up in the case of an employee who was secretly negotiating to leave his company and go to a competitor. As part of the deal he sent company some confidential documents before he gave his notice. Someone thought somethign was fishy, checked his email, and he was sued. He claimed he had thought he had a right to privacy. The supreme court held that if the company provided the email services, they were entitled to see everything on the system, with or without the permission of the user.

I don't think its moral to allow admins to go wandering through everyone's email at a whim. There should be a system where it is only done with permission of some third party like HR when something is suspected of going on.

James

What where they sending out as your e-mail account?

While I do not have a problem with doing routine checks on e-mails particuarly if a employee is suspected of doing something against the best interests of the company I do not regularly snoop either as I just lack the time and inclination.

But in the above case without knowing or for that matter even sending an e-mail you could find yourself in major trouble if someone took it upon them self to send a ransom demand from your work e-mail account or something similar.

Col

Good luck with that. Keep it ethical, please.

What's the startup's premise?

IT is a business. As in most businesses, there is no ethics, there is only the law.
If the law does not forbid it, you can do it if you think it is profitable. Ethics do not come into the equation.

Ethics are not something in a "code" or other body of law. They are learned from your parents and other role models through your observation of them. Not what they preach.

Ethics courses and seminars seem to teach rationalization not moral behavior.

If you are in a situation and you have to stop and ask yourself if it's wrong - it probably is.

Another thing your grandmother said - the one about two wrongs, that's also true. Just because you feel the company or a person owes you, doesn't justify an immoral act.

One more thing before the sermon ends - just because it's legal doesn't make something right.

As for others who feel it necessary to steal others WiFi, well they will be caught. Might not be at home, but their ethics will slip and they will pay the price.
It?s best to just live by the law of the land, than to be a rebel and get fired from your job for bad ethics. Those who brag about such things can make their own lives miserable at work if their bosses find out. After all, those who have no ethics says something about their character.
My 2 cents.

I know of several people, including myself who have dicovered unsecured wireless networks. None of us has taken advantage of this, and have made attepts to contact these people and offer assistance in securing them.
Maybe the question of ethics could be put the manufacturers of WiFi equipment for selling a product without a warning label.

For anybody in IT that really acts this way, think about this...

Let's say you woke up one morning and felt some terrible pains in your chest. The pain is just too much to handle, so you go to the hospital. The hospital admits you. Ten minutes later, a doctor comes in to see what the problem is. He gives you a full exam and decides that you need to have emergency open heart surgery right away.

Now, all you really have is a bad case of heartburn, but guess what? This particular doctor thinks that you are too stupid to realize this and decides to take advantage of you. He might even 'change a few settings' while he's in there.

I have been in IT for the last six years now and I can promise you that I would not have lasted this long without taking ethics into consideration.

Yes we need ethics. That is, ethics in people and actions. We do NOT need another piece of paper or document that people still won't follow.

We already have a workable ethics guideline in RFC 1087 (see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1087.html ). It says in part:
The IAB strongly endorses the view of the Division Advisory Panel of
the National Science Foundation Division of Network, Communications
Research and Infrastructure which, in paraphrase, characterized as
unethical and unacceptable any activity which purposely:

(a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of the
Internet,

(b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,

(c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such
actions,

(d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information,

and/or

(e) compromises the privacy of users.

sniffing other people's traffic, no matter how stupid they are, is at least unethical (& may actually violate federal wiretap laws ...).

The BIGGEST problem is that while there is a written ethics standard, too many people 1) don't know about it ad 2) wouldn't follow it if they did. We live in an era of very fluid values (Bernie Ebbers, et al) and very little ethics.

Ethical behavior is when you do what is right when no one is looking. Of course, it requires you have some idea of the difference between right and wrong but that's not solely a tech problem, now is it?!

The foundation principle of ethics in my world-view is putting other before self. In other words, guided by wisdom, we choose to sacrifice our freedom to do what satisfies ourselves to do instead what serves other. More succintly, we do what we should rather than what we can.

As alluded by others, ethos proceeds from what we are, not what we do. The same internal ethos that says, "I am free to take this money out of this wallet I found but instead I will sacrifice that freedom for the sake of the owner and return it to them intact," is the same internal ethos that says, "I know I am free as the e-mail administrator to read these confidential e-mails and satisfy my burning curiosity but I choose not to satisfy myself because it violates the trust of the person who sent it."

It is a very slippery slope to separate personal ethos and corporate behavior, in fact, it is impossible - we do what we are or, as Lao Tse, the founder of Taoism would more positively say, "to do, be". No matter how technical or corporate, the world still revolves around people. Corporations and departments who forget that experience only transitory success at best.

John Paul II states it even more forcefully for our modern, corporate world. He condemns the "objectivization" of people. That is, when we treat people as objects for our own consumption or exploitation, be it sexual, visual, financial or political rather than in their subjective reality as our brothers and sisters, we sow oppression, injustice, violence and every evil. In our own little worlds, when we treat others as objects for our use, when we gratify ourselves at the expense of others, we become our own little oppressors, polluting the world around us.

In a final approach to this profound subject, we can say that there are only two ends in life. For everything we do we can ask, "Why?" until we come to one of two end points. Either we do for self or we do for others. Others phrase it by saying there is either give or get, or either love or selfishness. So in judging our own lives, our own ethos and our own outflowing ethic, we need to ask, "do we live for self or for other?"

These are the foundations of ethics in all we do.

The problem is that the unethicl person is the one that will be left after all the ethical people are RIFF'd out of the company. After all, the stupid users who leave open wireless networks are the same ones who think your job is done better by Puali the Punjab only because he will work for 10 rupees an hour.

I do my part to get them secure, but unless and until there is a IT ethics test that will lead you to a high 5-figure starting salary, "would you like kraut with that dog" is the trend in IT ethics.

Why would ethics in IT be different than the rest of life? I submit they shouldn't be - the general ethics of life can be applied to specific cases in IT as they are in other areas of life.

A few years ago I began to hear business people talk about a separation between their personal and business lives, that what they would never do in a personal situation, they would have no problems doing in business. I find this kind of situational ethics to be rather schizophrenic, as if it's okay to have two different personalities.

Question that i always ask myself is 'does this feel right to me" If it does then it is ethical
thing to do, If it doesn't feel right then the issue is unethical.

I've been involved with the setup of numerous networks,small to multi enterprise .
At one point in my career I know very little about it.
But I took the time to learn, pay attention
Not everyone does,
But I what learned most from my peers was the ethics.And I've found that i would much rather work with someone who is ethically correct then having to tell someone they are not . Because they just don't get it!

For anyone who is interested, please go to the ISACA, ISC2, SANS, or numerous other IT organization's websites and review their "Code of Conduct" or "Code of Ethics" statements. For one to receive certifications such as the CISSP, SSCP, CISA, CISM, GSEC, and almost all others, you must adhere to such standards.

I can understand that some feel there might be some very small grey areas that they might feel they need guidance or clarification on, but overall, there really whould be no question regarding "The right thing to do". I was somewhat disappointed with the numerous postings where individuals make statements on what is clearly unethical activity. Such activities do impact our profession and on becoming public, reduce our credibility and lower the level of respect that persons outside the IT industry have for us. These statements reveal the sad state of affairs that ethics in IT is in.

A couple of years ago, I had to terminate an employee for revealing to another individual information he had seen on the CFO's computer while performing some maintenance on it. On his HR record, it states he "betrayed the trust of his position."

An individual in IT is in a position to see a an extraordinary amount of confidential and/or otherwise sensitive information. Often overlooked within the hiring and screening process of selecting an individual for an IT position which is privy to sensitive and confidential information, is trying to determine, as reasonably possible, that the person is of the highest possible moral fiber and does abide by some set of ethical guidelines. It is a line of questioning I vigorously pursue and I believe every person in a management position should. Allowing an unscupulous IT person access to such areas is akin to the "Fox guarding the chicken house" and an irresponsible act by the person's superiors.

All persons within IT and particularly those in management should familiarize themselves with laws related to IT (GLBA, SOX, SB1386, HIPPA, etc.) as well as those they related to individual privacy. Such knowledge should be a prerequisite for key positions. Education Institutions should include ethics and the applicable laws are part of the IT cirriculum. Accounting professionals are expected to be familiar with laws and code that impact their jobs. Electricians and plumbers are expected to be knowledgable of legal and building codes that impact their profession. Why would IT be an expection?

Persoanlly I believe that as IT continues to become more integrated into the systems that support our lives, we will see more and more legislation to protect the privacy of personal and corporate information. As these standards continue to evolve, some persons to are unaware or allow themselves to fall behind by not staying informaed and up to date may find themselves out of a job, or worse, in court for breaking a low they weren't even aware existed.

Just my two cents worth.

I agree that it is unethical, I also agree with the post about the golden rule.

I have seen unethical behaviour run rampant in IT be it those who capitalize on other's fears or ignorance or the sales person that soaks the consumer for a state of the art PC to do word processing or surf the internet. I have also seen it in the workplace, I.T. employees b.s.'ing management or users about the difficulty in doing something, or making a simple task seem complicated just to gain a sense of job security or superiority.

I suppose illegal software would fall into this category of unethical behaviour, the problem is now socially based and how society perceives the question "what is stealing?". Because something is not tangible does that really make it stealing? I think it does, but there seems to be a large percentage of those who do not.

There are two bigger problems that complicate the moral issues in general, profit and politics.

I applaud and encourage those who do operate with morals and hope we don't get too battered in the end!

Generally, the idea is, as was said before, The Golden Rule.

However, all circumstances are unique and require special consideration. Consider the following examples...

In the case of WiFi, there is no way to ask the user if they are benevolent or stupid. Therefore, if you use an open router, be considerate and try not to abuse the priviledge.

Much of our income, though, is based on the ignorance of others. If they weren't ignorant of specific things, they wouldn't need us.

A man goes to a mechanic and tells him, "I've taken this car to several mechanics who charged me for hours of work, but were not able to fix the problem. Could you take a look at it?" The mechanic checks the car out and says, "Sure. I can fix it, but it will cost you $100." The man says, "Ok. It's a deal. Here's $100". The mechanic reaches into the car, tightens a couple bolts, and says, "Ok. It should work now." The man exclaims, "$100 for just a minute's work?! That's a rip-off!! You're just taking advantage of me, because I don't know about cars." The mechanic calmly pockets the money and says, "Look. You went to several mechanics and wasted much more than this on them, and they weren't able to do the job. When you came to me, you weren't paying me for how long I worked, but for the information I knew."

Usually, it's all in how you look at it. If you adhere to the Humanistic point of view, you'll probably be OK, though. There really are no hard rules in this. If ethics were easy, lawyers wouldn't rich.

"If he play, being young and unskillful, for shekels of silver and gold. Take him my son, praising Allah, the lamb was ordained to be sold"
Kipling
Now that I've got your attention there are two ways to approach life or living
Everything not prohibited is permitted
Everything not permitted is prohibited.
These two dualitiies are what creat gray space, because neither, taken to the extreme, permit society to function. The quote shows how to thread the difference.
The condition imperative is "if he play" at the gaming tables. Anytime you enter a contest,playing for high stakes, not knowing what you are doing, you will get your head handed to you. It's called learning to play with the big boys.
If I, as set forth in the initial question, turn on my laptop and I automatically connedt to a network, it is permitted. Or as my grandmother taught me "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". If I do no harm to their network, I am ethical, because their action made me feel like a guest. I then should be courteous to my host.
Am I unethical to read a newspaper by leaning under the lampost in a parking lot? Is it wrong to listen to a movie from a drive in theaters broadcast outside their lot? I have not tricked cajoled, lied, or cheated to do that, I am benifiting by their choice to use their equipment as they see fit.
As for different ethics, what I do in my personal life and my business life can be governed by different rules. Ethics is following the rules and custome of the place you are. It is not ethical to use your strength height and weight to get your way in a baordroom. It is unethical not to do so on a football field.

I've been helping people with computer problems for i don't know how long. 18+ years.. My hardest problem is charging people for the stupid crap that microsoft windows does or the things said users are allowed to do , possibly causing damage to the OS.

If you take advantage of ignorant users you deserve a visit from the authorities.

If you were going into someone's house to fix their refrigerator would you stop on the way in and change the settings on the thermostat, have a piece of the cake sitting on the counter and rearrange the pictures on the wall?
If I go into someone's computer to fix a problem it isn't my place to re-arrange anything (even if's put together in a way that wastes space or resources and would benefit them)unless I explain and ask them... and then they'd need to know if or what this extra attention might cost them.
Before I went into this field someone came in to help me set up a small office network, a professional. When I was working through some registry problems later I found personal comments in various odd corners about myself! Needless to say I was rather angry!
To me this says more about his lack of integrity than my lack of knowledge. It also reflects on his company- which I would never do business with again.

I personally have always had my own set of standards and ethics that I live by. Personally I think many would do well to just have some. When I became a Certified Quality Technician back in 1995 I found that many of my own standard meshed quite well with the ASQ's (American Society of Quality) code of ethics:
http://www.asq.org/join/about/ethics.html

Just because you're not at work doesn't mean you should check your ethics at the door.

If you as an admin had someone tell you that you had an unsecured AP would you not be grateful? Why should it be any different in a home, if you discover an unsecured AP it should be your duty to let someone know, not just let them figure it out on their own and let them get hosed over.

ASQ Code of Ethics
To uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession, and in keeping with high standards of ethical conduct I acknowledge that I:

Fundamental Principles

Will be honest and impartial, and will serve with devotion my employer, my clients, and the public.

Will strive to increase the competence and prestige of the profession.

Will use my knowledge and skill for the advancement of human welfare, and in promoting the safety and reliability of products for public use.

Will earnestly endeavor to aid the work of the Society.

Relations With the Public

1.1 Will do whatever I can to promote the reliability and safety of all products that come within my jurisdiction.
1.2 Will endeavor to extend public knowledge of the work of the Society and its members that relates to the public welfare.
1.3 Will be dignified and modest in explaining my work and merit.
1.4 Will preface any public statements that I may issue by clearly indicating on whose behalf they are made.

Relations With Employers and Clients

2.1 Will act in professional matters as a faithful agent or trustee for each employer or client.
2.2 Will inform each client or employer of any business connections, interests, or affiliations which might influence my judgment or impair the equitable character of my services.
2.3 Will indicate to my employer or client the adverse consequences to be expected if my professional judgment is overruled.
2.4 Will not disclose information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former employer or client without his consent.
2.5 Will not accept compensation from more than one party for the same service without the consent of all parties. If employed, I will engage in supplementary employment of consulting practice only with the consent of my employer.

Relations With Peers

3.1 Will take care that credit for the work of others is given to those whom it is due.
3.2 Will endeavor to aid the professional development and advancement of those in my employ or under my supervision.
3.3 Will not compete unfairly with others; will extend my friendship and confidence to all associates and those with whom I have business relations.

Obviously you'd have to modify these to suit our industry but the still remains the same.