On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:15 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:

>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?

Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.

Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
sympathy.

Also, you assume that because I have no sympathy with the "victims", I
think that the people taking advantage of the blind stupidity of those
with open networks shouldn't be prosecuted. Where did I say that?

Apart from those, you're spot-on.

Paul.

--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.