Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
>account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
>is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?
>
>If someone bought a house which had a backdoor, accessible from an
>alley, to the garage with the sign 'Free Apples Here' affixed to it,
>put apples in the garage, did not remove the sign and kept the back
>door unlocked then I am sure they would not have any valid legal
>grounds for complaint if people came into the garage via the back door
>and helped themselves to the apples even if they never use the back
>door to the garage, did not notice it was unlocked and never walked
>along the alley so were not aware of the sign.
>
>While this may seem a ridiculous analogy, it is almost exactly the
>situation of someone who (by ignorance) runs an 'open' wireless router
>without changing the configuration.

That is indeed a ridiculous analogy, because there is *no sign* which
says "Free Apples Here". All there is is the unlocked back door.

Now, if the SSID gets changed from "Linksys" to "OpenAccess", then
yes there is a sign... and the analogy would fit that scenario.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com