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 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?

That's a either a gloriously flawed analogy, or a nonsensical
question. Using a publically-available wireless network is more akin
to someone on the street at night reading a newspaper by the light
from your windows. Theft of light? If you don't want it to happen, put
up curtains.

>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.

Fair enough. But what's been stolen? Where's the intention to
permanently deprive?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'