In article <fakhe11fng8aa2dspnmlk8hmevl931rabt@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
> >> 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.

Not quite the same. It's easy for anyone to understand an open door, but less easy,
particularly for a novice, to understand computer networking. In either case, theft
is still theft, whether it's easy or difficult for the thief to accomplish.

And where is the "please help yourself" sign? Please don't say that the mere
existence of a wireless access point that *can* be accessed amounts to an
invitation to do so. You might as well say that parking my car outside is an
invitation for somebody to scratch it - because they can - or that leaving my
windows without bars on them is an invitation for somebody to break them - because
they can - or perhaps that leaving my house without a 24 hour armed guard is an
invitation for somebody to set fire to it - because thay can - but where would this
line of reasoning end?

> 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?

You didn't say it. I didn't say that you said it. I was *asking* if it reflected
what you thought because it seemed to follow from what you *had* said. Thank you
for clarifying the matter.

Rod.