In article <s2gue1533n0e2km0p7vuthfah24059ughm@4ax.com>, Postman Pat wrote:
> >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.
>
> Not really because J Public can be reasonably expected to buy a
> wireless enabled laptop, take it home, switch it on, and HEY I have
> internet access.

I think you're missing the point, which was in reply to someone who seemed to
think that an unsecured network was fair game to anybody who felt like using it.
The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute an
"invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result of its owner's
ignorance. Ironically, as you've pointed out, the same general ignorance that can
result in one person's property (i.e. internet service) being inadvertently
vulnerable to theft can also make someone else inadvertently commit it.

The situation is a minefield, but I don't think it gives anyone the right to
exploit someone else's ignorance by knowingly taking something that isn't theirs
simply because the owner is unaware of how to stop them.

Rod.