On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:57:43 +0100, Graham Murray in message
<news:874qa8lcmw.fsf@newton.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.

There is one HUGE difference.

There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".

If somebody left apples in their unlocked garage, but without any sign to
say they were free, then they *would* have a complaint if somebody walked
off with some.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Put on your seatbelt. I'm gonna try something new.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom