and i supose if you go and drink water from a public fountatin i should be arrested too for the fact the water is open to the public and not locked down.
Sounds like they dont want to take fault for not fencing up a public oasis in the middle of no where because you know if it isnt yours its owned already by some one else more powerful and richer then you.
Also what if the wifi is a public wifi by choice for the people to use? is it still stealing then?
I guess you didn't see that scene in "Lawrence of Arabia" where Peter Toole meets up with Omar Shariff at a desert well (that scene was ripped off in one of the later Star Trek movies but played differently).
and i supose if you go and drink water from a public fountatin
A public fountain is paid for by tax money so it is in an entirely different domain then a private internet connection that is paid for by an individual. How would you like someone tapping into your water supply, electrical lines? Since you are not paying for the service you do not have the right to access it.
Also what if the wifi is a public wifi by choice for the people to
Public wifi by definition is when the owner consents t
Read The Fine Article, the owner of the wifi did in fact deliberately leave the point open. If you come across unrestricted wireless access the basic assumption is - or should be - that it is exactly what it was intended to be. That there is absolutely nothing wrong in using it.
If you don't want to offer open access, fine, don't. But if I *do* want to offer an open access point then there is no reason people should be in fear of going to prison when my access point reaches out and greets their notebook.
Still. If the owner of the wifi had wanted others to use it why did he get the guy arrested...unless hes just a jerk.
basic assumption is - or should be - that it is exactly what it was intended
I see your point but that's still a dangerous assumption. Its like saying that if your neighbor left his door open and left the house you would feel free to go in and use his computer. I doubt your neighbor would be too happy about that.
No, it's not. The difference is the invitation. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to allow people like you to have wifi, since you so fundamentally misunderstand the technology.
And don't visit my website below. I never gave you permission to go there! Just because your neighbour left his book on the deck doesn't mean you can run up and read it!
In this case the user obviously did not want people using his wifi.
I don't think it's at all obvious. He's said he knew how to secure it but didn't. He left it entirely publicly accessible, when it was very easy to make it not accessible. From outside it looks like it's there for the public to use.
Worse yet, when I was a kid I would steal drinks of water from peoples hoses. I am ashamed that I ignored the complex antitheft faucet handles. I used to wonder why every one had a diferent style. Now I know it was to prevent the faucet kiddies and there evil ways. The grievous harm done to civilization.
Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:4, Interesting)
Omar Shariff (Score:2)
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:1)
A public fountain is paid for by tax money so it is in an entirely different domain then a private internet connection that is paid for by an individual. How would you like someone tapping into your water supply, electrical lines? Since you are not paying for the service you do not have the right to access it.
Also what if the wifi is a public wifi by choice for the people to
Public wifi by definition is when the owner consents t
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:2)
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want to offer open access, fine, don't. But if I *do* want to offer an open access point then there is no reason people should be in fear of going to prison when my access point reaches out and greets their notebook.
-
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:1)
basic assumption is - or should be - that it is exactly what it was intended
I see your point but that's still a dangerous assumption. Its like saying that if your neighbor left his door open and left the house you would feel free to go in and use his computer. I doubt your neighbor would be too happy about that.
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:2)
And don't visit my website below. I never gave you permission to go there! Just because your neighbour left his book on the deck doesn't mean you can run up and read it!
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:2)
I don't think it's at all obvious. He's said he knew how to secure it but didn't. He left it entirely publicly accessible, when it was very easy to make it not accessible. From outside it looks like it's there for the public to use.
Re:Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink (Score:1)