On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:50 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:

>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?

In the Wireless Network connections window.

>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?

It shouldn't have started because it's irrelevant.

The open invitation is on anyone's "connect" dialog box when they
fire-up their wireless networking. Connecting through doesn't
specifically require a deliberately malicious intent, merely
ignorance. All your examples require malicious intent. My analogy is
still the most accurate one.

>> 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.

I didn't think that I had.

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.