Roderick Stewart 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?

If we're going into analogies, utterly secured networks are a bit like
unfenced land, people will wander into them, either because they assume
it is allowed, or they just don't notice. Putting any kind of security
that someone will need to circumvent in place, no matter how easy it is
to bypass, tells people that you don't want them on your network.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.