Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> writes:

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

Rather than an open domestic front door, I think it is more like a
shop or office with the sign "Internet Access Here" and an unlocked
door. Someone using WiFi will see your 'sign' (as a network available
to use) and when they attempt to use that connection it is like
pushing the shop door, finding it open, entering and making use of the
facilities inside.

Though maybe a better analogy would be a public convenience. You would
not expect to go along a street trying all the house doors and
entering one which was open and using the loo in one you found
open. But if a door has a sign "Ladies" or "Gentlemen", as appropriate
for your sex, and is unlocked then it is an invitation to enter if you
wish to relieve yourself.