On TechRepublic: Linux desktops have tanked: Get over it
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 14 of 50:
Next »
« Previous
I'm slow, so help me out here
The original poster specifically stated that even if someone forgets or doesn't know how to secure their router, anyone should be able to use it.

How exactly is it different if someone is using MY home vs using MY Wifi signal.

Using a service that you don't pay for is theft, even if the person paying for the service doesn't secure it and is unknowingly providing it to everyone. Walking into and using someone's home because they don't lock the doors is no different.

Even if you want to provide your connection to anyone, unless you invite that person to use it, how would they know that they aren't stealing your signal? Is everyone just to assume that all unsecured WiFi hotspots are open to the public. Seems similar to me arguing that any unlocked house is open to the public.

The only argument that you've made is that because you don't care about WiFi, its OK but since you do care about your home, its not. The idea of theft only matters if you care?
Posted by: ibabadur1   Posted on: 07/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Interesting question arises -  klmmicro | 07/08/05
concordance  wlabarre@... | 07/08/05
I wonder how they'll handle open wifi  Nigel Johnstone | 07/08/05
Yup  Protector | 07/08/05
Invent a law again  Nigel Johnstone | 07/08/05
All depends  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Intentionally accessing your house at 3:00 AM  Knorthern Knight | 07/08/05
The Law  nkallner@... | 07/08/05
There's more to this than we're being told...  BitTwiddler | 07/08/05
No way to know  tic swayback | 07/08/05
THIS IS GETTING INSANE  Protector | 07/08/05
Same logic....  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Not true...  low-life | 07/08/05
I'm slow, so help me out here  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Sure...  low-life | 07/08/05
still not catching on  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Flawed analogies  tic swayback | 07/08/05
NOT!  bchesmer | 07/08/05
try this one  Dave F_z | 07/10/05
I do see one point in your argument.  low-life | 07/08/05
I see  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Re: I see  low-life | 07/08/05
Free Services  Vicissidude | 07/09/05
More Appropriate Metaphor  Vicissidude | 07/09/05
I Bet If He Worked For Homeland Security He Would Have Been Ok  itanalyst | 07/08/05
Open invitation  tic swayback | 07/08/05
Interesting thought  ibabadur1 | 07/08/05
Interference  tic swayback | 07/08/05
Next question  tic swayback | 07/08/05
Another Question  itanalyst | 07/08/05
When the RIAA comes knocking  GrumpyOldMan | 07/08/05
Right  tic swayback | 07/08/05
BULL!  raymanjr | 07/08/05
Using precedent . . .  Roger Ramjet | 07/08/05
Not sure I agree  tic swayback | 07/08/05
Might be true  Roger Ramjet | 07/08/05
Invitations  tic swayback | 07/08/05
Not true...  bchesmer | 07/08/05
That should be OK  Knorthern Knight | 07/08/05
Depends on the wording  tic swayback | 07/08/05
out of box experience  MIS Master | 07/08/05
Federal law and Wi-Fi mooching  realgomer | 07/08/05
You got it!  bchesmer | 07/08/05
Federal Law and Mooching  mtrotz | 07/08/05
Sort of  osreinstall | 07/09/05
Common Sense  cobalt54 | 07/10/05
Wow. The people here who try to justify theft with  John Zern | 07/11/05
Hardly  tic swayback | 07/11/05
It's not theft  twinkler@... | 07/11/05
It could be considered theft  b_t_f@... | 07/24/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here