In article <6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
> >I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
> >my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
> >inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
> >
> >Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
> >law, then
>
> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.

Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
adequate precautions against this?

In fact, if you think about it, anybody who has anything stolen from them could
be said not to have taken adequate precautions, because if the precautions *had*
been adequate the items would not have been stolen, so on that basis any theft
is exonerated if the thief can carry it out successfuly.

Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
take them.

Rod.