Jump to content
mortagen

Free internet... what's stopping me or you other than morals?

Recommended Posts

My use of the word 'deliberate' was sarcastic and served to demonstrate that a person's action or inaction does not imply a deliberate offer of something. Whether you decide to read it as one is another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stealing wifi is like saying you stole a tv show because you tuned in.

What a load of bollocks.

 

What a load of BULLSHIT more like. I pay for my internet connection at home, each MB for the month. If I go over my monthly allowance, I either get capped or I pay per MB I use more (often a ridiculous rate).

 

So it's nothing like watching TV, it's like you using something I have pay for on a monthly basis, which is stealing, which is why it's illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of the word 'deliberate' was sarcastic and served to demonstrate that a person's action or inaction does not imply a deliberate offer of something. Whether you decide to read it as one is another issue.

Right. How is logging to a router to configure internet settings and ignoring security settings or prompts not a deliberate act?

 

 

Stealing wifi is like saying you stole a tv show because you tuned in.

What a load of bollocks.

 

What a load of BULLSHIT more like. I pay for my internet connection at home, each MB for the month. If I go over my monthly allowance, I either get capped or I pay per MB I use more (often a ridiculous rate).

 

So it's nothing like watching TV, it's like you using something I have pay for on a monthly basis, which is stealing, which is why it's illegal.

 

Would you leave your car unlocked with the doors open on the road outside your house, with the keys in the ignition?

 

I get that people pay for it, and have bandwidth limits. So then secure it, the same way you would secure anything valuable. It's not hard, and there is no excuse not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of the word 'deliberate' was sarcastic and served to demonstrate that a person's action or inaction does not imply a deliberate offer of something. Whether you decide to read it as one is another issue.

Right. How is logging to a router to configure internet settings and ignoring security settings or prompts not a deliberate act?

 

Because as has been previously demonstrated, many devices have security disabled so there is no deliberate act of ignorance. A point you previously conceded and contradicting your comment above.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you leave your car unlocked with the doors open on the road outside your house, with the keys in the ignition?

So any time someone uses an example like this against you, it doesn't apply.

 

But when you use it - and imply that 'borrowing' a car, burning through some fuel and pulling a few burn-outs is fine if someone leaves the keys in it - it supports your cause?

 

Come down to earth, dude.

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The best things in life are free. The internet is the root of all evil though, will somebody think of the children?!!

 

I choose to not buy and install any of those annoying water tap locks for my water taps around my house. I figure, sure, I am not locking them down. Yes water costs me money, and yes people could walk past and take some without my consent. I am just glad there are not a lot of assholes in my area driving around with a truck and illegally filling up tanks with my water because I would then have to annoyingly go out and buy tap locks and unlock my freakin' tap every time I water the garden (with a bucket).

 

I have the right to leave my front door unlocked (like many people apparently used to in the 60s, ask your grand Ma). People do not know that the door is unlocked unless they actually come up to it and try to open it without my consent. Well, I happen to live in a world where there are enough assholes that would try this, get in, take my shit and sell it for crack, or maybe pie, some people buy lots of pie. Hence I choose to lock my front door, not because I like to have to use 2 freakin' keys to enter my own house each day, its mainly so that my insurance company would then be happy paying for replacements for items taken by assholes if they even decide to break the flimsy locks on my basic wooden door.

 

I choose to leave a stash of coins and notes in the "IT Kitty" above my desk at work. It is not locked. I am happy that there has not been an influx of coin steeling assholes coming in and taking money to buy themselves some coke, (or probably ICE on that budget, or at least a caffeine hit?). Even the cleaners haven't touched it. I'm glad I do not need a key to get a freakin' dollar out for a soft drink.

 

I could go on, but in response to this topic / thread, after reading the above please feel free to guess why in relation to my own wireless network:

I WPA lock it the fuck down and regularly rotate encryption codes, and don't be an asshole and say it is because I freakin' enjoy it!

 

DJ.

 

So... how bout those Socceroos eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... at the least due to fulfill ignorance, and will make use of that. The distinction that must be made is not one of whether or not an open network was due to a mistake, but rather if it is wrong to use an a network that was deliberately left open or not.

I'm not sure how what definitions of "ignorance" and "deliberate" you use, but the definitions in use by most of the population mean it's impossible to "deliberately" do anything that you're ignorant of. This is pretty simple logic, I'm not sure how you missed it.

 

Regardless, I feel I should just say your stance disgusts me. You are willing to acknowledge people are ignorant sometimes, but think it's ok to abuse that anyway. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be at a meet with you I sincerely hope someone reminds me not to put my belongings on a chair or anything, 'cause you probably think that's an invitation to rummage through it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of the word 'deliberate' was sarcastic and served to demonstrate that a person's action or inaction does not imply a deliberate offer of something. Whether you decide to read it as one is another issue.

Right. How is logging to a router to configure internet settings and ignoring security settings or prompts not a deliberate act?

It's not a deliberate act by virtue of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the person configuring it.

 

Should such people be configuring these devices? No.

Do they, and will they continue to do so? Yes.

Will all router vendors ever agree to secure things (and competently do so) by default? I doubt it.

 

Assuming that a misconfiguration or lack of configuration by an individual constitutes a deliberate invitation to use the device/service is, in my opinion, stupid.

Edited by segger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most house windows come in a locked positions.

 

It doesnt mean that leaving your window open gives people the right to come into your house and steal things.

 

Sure it might make it understandable if they do, but certainly not legal.

 

Rob.

What about items left in a deliberately unlocked cabinet on the sidewalk outside a house?

 

Have you ever known anyone to deliberately leave a WiFi connection unsecured when they understand what it is that they are doing?

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because as has been previously demonstrated, many devices have security disabled so there is no deliberate act of ignorance. A point you previously conceded and contradicting your comment above.

No, I'm not. I made a point of saying willful ignorance in my post, which I mistyped. I see it as a deliberate act because people have to connect to the modem or router to configure their settings. The security options is right there, and it is more than likely recommended in the manual. Choosing to ignore this advice and learn about the risks is a deliberate act.

 

 

So any time someone uses an example like this against you, it doesn't apply.

 

But when you use it - and imply that 'borrowing' a car, burning through some fuel and pulling a few burn-outs is fine if someone leaves the keys in it - it supports your cause?

 

Come down to earth, dude.

That is not the point I was trying to make. I do think the "locked door" analogy is a false one. I was using a similar example to show the difference between willfully leaving something unsecured and then acting surprised when something bad happens, and securing it in the first place.

 

 

I'm not sure how what definitions of "ignorance" and "deliberate" you use, but the definitions in use by most of the population mean it's impossible to "deliberately" do anything that you're ignorant of. This is pretty simple logic, I'm not sure how you missed it.

 

Regardless, I feel I should just say your stance disgusts me. You are willing to acknowledge people are ignorant sometimes, but think it's ok to abuse that anyway. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be at a meet with you I sincerely hope someone reminds me not to put my belongings on a chair or anything, 'cause you probably think that's an invitation to rummage through it too.

I made a distinction between willful ignorance and ignorance. Choosing to be ignorant is a deliberate act.

 

I think that you don't understand my stance. I would not steal from people, and I wouldn't take peoples belongings of a chair simply because they were left there. This is different from using an open wifi connection, as I do not consider it stealing.

 

It's not a deliberate act by virtue of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the person configuring it.

 

Should such people be configuring these devices? No.

Do they, and will they continue to do so? Yes.

Will all router vendors ever agree to secure things (and competently do so) by default? I doubt it.

 

Assuming that a misconfiguration or lack of configuration by an individual constitutes a deliberate invitation to use the device/service is, in my opinion, stupid.

I kind of see where your coming from, but considering the ISP's will tell you to secure your router or modem, as will the associated manual, as will any number of articles etc online.., as well as the fact the security tab is right there on the configuration page, and that all of these things would have had to be purposely ignored.., then yes, I see this as deliberate. Honestly, what it comes down to, is that people would rather leave security off for convenience, and that most certainly is deliberate.

 

 

Have you ever known anyone to deliberately leave a WiFi connection unsecured when they understand what it is that they are doing?

 

Rob.

Yes, just like I have known doctors to smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a deliberate act by virtue of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the person configuring it.

 

Should such people be configuring these devices? No.

Do they, and will they continue to do so? Yes.

Will all router vendors ever agree to secure things (and competently do so) by default? I doubt it.

 

Assuming that a misconfiguration or lack of configuration by an individual constitutes a deliberate invitation to use the device/service is, in my opinion, stupid.

I kind of see where your coming from, but considering the ISP's will tell you to secure your router or modem, as will the associated manual, as will any number of articles etc online.., as well as the fact the security tab is right there on the configuration page, and that all of these things would have had to be purposely ignored.., then yes, I see this as deliberate. Honestly, what it comes down to, is that people would rather leave security off for convenience, and that most certainly is deliberate.

If left off for convenience, then sure, the act of not configuring the security features was deliberate. That case doesn't hold true if it's a lack of understanding/knowledge which leads to those features not being enabled.

 

Even if security has been deliberately disabled, this still does not constitute a deliberate invitation to use the services exposed by doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So any time someone uses an example like this against you, it doesn't apply.

 

But when you use it - and imply that 'borrowing' a car, burning through some fuel and pulling a few burn-outs is fine if someone leaves the keys in it - it supports your cause?

 

Come down to earth, dude.

That is not the point I was trying to make. I do think the "locked door" analogy is a false one. I was using a similar example to show the difference between willfully leaving something unsecured and then acting surprised when something bad happens, and securing it in the first place.

Yeah, that's the same thing as a locked door analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If left off for convenience, then sure, the act of not configuring the security features was deliberate. That case doesn't hold true if it's a lack of understanding/knowledge which leads to those features not being enabled.

 

Even if security has been deliberately disabled, this still does not constitute a deliberate invitation to use the services exposed by doing so.

 

+1

 

As previously pointed out, there are quite a number of devices that will work, out of the box, with security disabled. Many in fact have "quick setup" guides that DON'T include security settings. As segger points out, a lack of understanding/knowledge does not equate to a deliberate act/invitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If left off for convenience, then sure, the act of not configuring the security features was deliberate. That case doesn't hold true if it's a lack of understanding/knowledge which leads to those features not being enabled.

 

Even if security has been deliberately disabled, this still does not constitute a deliberate invitation to use the services exposed by doing so.

I don't see how it is possible to have a lack or understanding of keeping security disabled, for the reasons I have mentioned, and will mention again. Windows will warn you off the risks when you connect to an unsecured network. Your ISP's will tell you. Any online site will tell you. Any technician you paid to set it up for you will tell you. The manual will tell you. With all of this glaring out at you, and probably more I am missing, how can anyone claim a lack of knowledge? Understanding yes, but you dont have to understand the mechanisms of a lock to lock something.

 

Given that a lack of understanding is irrelevant, and that I don't see how it is possible to have a lack of knowledge unless it was a conscious decision, then an openwifi network is an invitation. I am sure there are exceptions to this, but they are most certainly a minority.

 

Yeah, that's the same thing as a locked door analogy.

There is a difference.

 

Fuzz used a locked door analogy to demonstrate his view that entering a house left unlocked is the same as connecting to an open wifi connection. This is simply wrong. If nothing else, an unlocked door left closed would show at least that the owners wanted to keep some people out. This is equivalent to a wifi connection with a password of password. The security is unbelievably weak and ineffective, but implies that at least the owners wanted to keep some people out.

 

I used a similar analogy to demonstrate that leaving something valuable deliberately unlocked and available will more than likely result in it being taken advantage of. The target of my analogy was not to show the similarity to a wifi connection, but rather to the process of employing the common sense to secure something valuable.

 

As previously pointed out, there are quite a number of devices that will work, out of the box, with security disabled. Many in fact have "quick setup" guides that DON'T include security settings. As segger points out, a lack of understanding/knowledge does not equate to a deliberate act/invitation.

You keep coming back to this point, and I don't know why. It is irrelevant. A number of devices have security disabled by default. So what? It is hard to avoid the knowledge that your wifi network is insecure for the reasons I outlined above. More so, if you connect to your device to configure it, and deliberately ignore the security settings contrary to all advice and information available to you, then that is deliberate.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep coming back to this point, and I don't know why. It is irrelevant. A number of devices have security disabled by default. So what? It is hard to avoid the knowledge that your wifi network is insecure for the reasons I outlined above. More so, if you connect to your device to configure it, and deliberately ignore the security settings contrary to all advice and information available to you, then that is deliberate.

As I said, many quick setup guides take you through without enabling security, so the act isn't deliberate.

 

So your comment, "It is hard to avoid the knowledge that your wifi network is insecure", is incorrect. More importantly, the implications of not setting up security is not well understood by non-computer literate folks. Something I would say is undeniable.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep coming back to this point, and I don't know why. It is irrelevant. A number of devices have security disabled by default. So what? It is hard to avoid the knowledge that your wifi network is insecure for the reasons I outlined above. More so, if you connect to your device to configure it, and deliberately ignore the security settings contrary to all advice and information available to you, then that is deliberate.

As I said, many quick setup guides take you through without enabling security, so the act isn't deliberate.

 

So your comment, "It is hard to avoid the knowledge that your wifi network is insecure", is incorrect. More importantly, the implications of not setting up security is not well understood by non-computer literate folks. Something I would say is undeniable.

 

I really feel like you don't read a lot of what I say. Or at least you don't listen.

 

Can you show me an example of a device that, in the manual, omits a security section, or does not have a security menu as a main menu item?

 

For the routers you provided, the NetGear WGT624 does include security in the quick setup, and in the manual states that is is strongly recommended to enable security. That is on page 28 of the pdf. The Linksys WAG160N also has a wireless security quick setup, and the manual states:

 

NOTE: Wi-Fi Protected Setup is a feature that makes it easy to configure your wireless network and its security settings. For more information, refer to “Wireless > Basic Wireless Settings“ in the “Advanced Configuration” chapter.

 

As well as a huge honking wireless security checklist at the start of the manual. I am sure the NetGear WNR350 has a similar process and recommendation.

 

How can the implications of not setting up security failed to be understood for the reasons listed in, but not limited to my reply to segger?

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look there's pink matter on my brick wall.

If you want to continue being naive and condoning willful ignorance and stupidity as an excuse then by all means. Or you could listen to what I said, and actually bother to give an intelligent response to the points I made in my reply.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really feel like you don't read a lot of what I say. Or at least you don't listen.

 

Can you show me an example of a device that, in the manual, omits a security section, or does not have a security menu as a main menu item?

Well, that's just stupid, but I'll answer it anyway. No manual for such a device would not have a security section. The question is, do non-computer literate people understand the implications of not setting up security? As a person who has set up wireless routers for countless family and friends, the answer i've found is a resounding no. The routers often will work without having to setup the security, and novices are just happy that their wireless works, so they don't want to fiddle with it. A point I've previously made, so when it comes to not listening...

For the routers you provided, the NetGear WGT624 does include security in the quick setup, and in the manual states that is is strongly recommended to enable security.

Did you look at the Install Guide? There is NO reference to security whatsoever, which shoots you down in flames... By using the Install Guide for this device, it's possible to get wireless connectivity working without security, in fact the only time security is mentioned is in putting a password on the router itself.

That is on page 28 of the pdf. The Linksys WAG160N also has a wireless security quick setup, and the manual states:

 

NOTE: Wi-Fi Protected Setup is a feature that makes it easy to configure your wireless network and its security settings. For more information, refer to “Wireless > Basic Wireless Settings“ in the “Advanced Configuration” chapter.

 

As well as a huge honking wireless security checklist at the start of the manual. I am sure the NetGear WNR350 has a similar process and recommendation.

 

How can the implications of not setting up security failed to be understood for the reasons listed in, but not limited to my reply to segger?

The NetGear WNR3500 has a setup guide that allows you to setup wireless without security. It does have a section on security, and guess what the first words are in that section.

A box with "For Advanced users only". That whole section would be Greek for non-computer literate folks.

 

The WAG160N Install guide has NO setup for security. At the end of the guide there is a checkbox giving you a link to where you can get instructions on security setup for wireless.

 

I can easily see non-computer literate folks thinking that if it was so important it would be in the install guide. It's not.

 

What's the purpose of all this? To come to a conclusion that it is quite easy for most folks to setup wireless access without security because they don't understand the implications. From the examples above, I think that point is beyond doubt.

 

Given this, then it's possible most people who setup wireless access without security aren't really standing on the footpath naked, touching their toes under a sign saying "RAPE ME", as you assert...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the same thing as a locked door analogy.

There is a difference.

 

Fuzz used a locked door analogy to demonstrate his view that entering a house left unlocked is the same as connecting to an open wifi connection. This is simply wrong. If nothing else, an unlocked door left closed would show at least that the owners wanted to keep some people out. This is equivalent to a wifi connection with a password of password. The security is unbelievably weak and ineffective, but implies that at least the owners wanted to keep some people out.

 

I used a similar analogy to demonstrate that leaving something valuable deliberately unlocked and available will more than likely result in it being taken advantage of. The target of my analogy was not to show the similarity to a wifi connection, but rather to the process of employing the common sense to secure something valuable.

Yeah. So you've got to entirely ignore the context of the comment to miss the aforesaid implication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, do non-computer literate people understand the implications of not setting up security? As a person who has set up wireless routers for countless family and friends, the answer i've found is a resounding no.

I'll also happily add not only a "No" for the vast majority of my clients that I've set this up for (~100?). These are people who need me to pay me ~$100+ to come round and install their new internet connection hardware for them. I've also been to plenty of houses where they'd set their own hardware up and left it unprotected - not deliberately, they either didn't know about it or think that they won't be able to do it properly and they'll bugger up the modem if they try.

 

These people are out there, and they're not the minority.

 

*EDIT* Oops, meant to tack this onto the other post.

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's just stupid, but I'll answer it anyway. No manual for such a device would not have a security section. The question is, do non-computer literate people understand the implications of not setting up security?

YES! They might not how to set it up, but they will know the ramifications. Not all of them, but they will understand, at the least, that other people may connect. If for no other reason than WINDOWS will warn you of this.

 

As a person who has set up wireless routers for countless family and friends, the answer i've found is a resounding no. The routers often will work without having to setup the security, and novices are just happy that their wireless works, so they don't want to fiddle with it.

Do you set them up with security or without? If people don't understand it, they get someone who does. If they decide to set it up themselves without a full understanding, then they should be responsible enough to read the easy to understand security advice.

 

Did you look at the Install Guide? There is NO reference to security whatsoever, which shoots you down in flames... By using the Install Guide for this device, it's possible to get wireless connectivity working without security, in fact the only time security is mentioned is in putting a password on the router itself.

Errr. Look at this manual.

 

Now look at page 24.

 

To quote:

 

When you get to the wireless settings, you will have to select the country where you are located and decide whether you want to have security on your wireless links (Netgear strongly recommends enabling security).

 

Hmmm. That is from 2005, so I guess it is possible they decided to remove the security options from the quick setup, and reconsider recommending to enable security....

 

The WAG160N Install guide has NO setup for security. At the end of the guide there is a checkbox giving you a link to where you can get instructions on security setup for wireless.

 

I can easily see non-computer literate folks thinking that if it was so important it would be in the install guide. It's not.

See how you didn't listen to what I said about the WAG160N?

 

Look here.

 

Chapter 2 is the Wireless Security checklist, right after Product Overview, and BEFORE installation!!! How can you say there is nothing about security?

 

I can't be bothered to look up the NetGear WNR3500 but considering you were wrong about the other two routers, I am sure you are about this one as well.

 

What's the purpose of all this? To come to a conclusion that it is quite easy for most folks to setup wireless access without security because they don't understand the implications. From the examples above, I think that point is beyond doubt.

Your ability to find relevant documentation is the only thing in question. There has been sufficient and easy to understand information on security in the examples you provided. As well as in the examples I gave in my reply to segger, which you conveniently ignored.

 

Given this, then it's possible most people who setup wireless access without security aren't really standing on the footpath naked, touching their toes under a sign saying "RAPE ME", as you assert...

I asserted no such thing. If people set up the devices themselves, then information from the vendor, their ISP and any number of guides on the net will give decent advice. Otherwise, they can pay someone more qualified to set it up, who should advise them of the risks.

 

 

I'll also happily add not only a "No" for the vast majority of my clients that I've set this up for (~100?). These are people who need me to pay me ~$100+ to come round and install their new internet connection hardware for them. I've also been to plenty of houses where they'd set their own hardware up and left it unprotected - not deliberately, they either didn't know about it or think that they won't be able to do it properly and they'll bugger up the modem if they try.

 

These people are out there, and they're not the minority.

 

*EDIT* Oops, meant to tack this onto the other post.

Right. But there is a difference between paying someone qualified to setup a device for them, and choosing to setup a device themselves whilst ignoring all the relevant advice and documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuzz used a locked door analogy to demonstrate his view that entering a house left unlocked is the same as connecting to an open wifi connection. This is simply wrong. If nothing else, an unlocked door left closed would show at least that the owners wanted to keep some people out. This is equivalent to a wifi connection with a password of password. The security is unbelievably weak and ineffective, but implies that at least the owners wanted to keep some people out.

 

I used a similar analogy to demonstrate that leaving something valuable deliberately unlocked and available will more than likely result in it being taken advantage of. The target of my analogy was not to show the similarity to a wifi connection, but rather to the process of employing the common sense to secure something valuable.

Note: I feel sorry for all the intellectually challenged people who are often the computer illiterate people of the world. They often do not consider "the process of employing the common sense to secure something valuable". Some of those poor bastards keep me employed :)

 

Firstly:

To quote you directly "leaving something valuable deliberately unlocked and available will more than likely result in it being taken advantage of", in that case you are stating that every time you connect to an unsecured wifi connection you are happy to be possibly "taking advantage" of the host if they are silly enough to give you the opportunity to do so.

 

Secondly:

You stated that people leaving their front door closed yet unlocked is the "equivalent to a wifi connection with a password of password...implies that at least the owners wanted to keep some people out". Here is why I don't accept that: People generally know how to open doors by the handle, whether they are building construction illiterate or not it is part of our common way of life (most westerners anyway). Ask you grand Ma to open a door and you will see what I mean. On the other hand, what percentage of the population do you think might even attempt a password of "password" or try cracking encryption to find it was simply "password"? (Now now, stay focussed here, I would like a decent response from you after this.) Therefore, I argue that an unsecured wifi connection is much more like an open front door. Double-clicking to connect is about as commonly known as opening a door by the handle. putting a password or "password" is like the door being shut and crappy little hand locked latch is keeping the screen door closed even though it can be reached from the outside by poking a hole in the fly screen.

 

Lastly:

I must say, people that do connect to unsuspecting (and yes, irresponsible) hosts are in effect causing the host to learn the hard way when their 2GB/month limit is reached in the 1st week. But even the positive in that is outweighed by the negative as people in that situation often do not learn. They give in. They may stop using the internet / router at all, blame Telstra for telling them 1GB is enough for "surfing the net" (chances are they didn't shop around, they always choose bloody Helstra, lol) and avoid technology even more. Although I personally think some of these people should never actually be allowed to run a or be in charge of a computer / internet connection (they turn too many IT support people insane) it probably hurts the industry. However, if security was set as a default (by law?) on these devices from the get go, yes, there would be less convenience but also less idiots getting taken advantage of. People would have to actually choose to leave their "door" wide open.

Also, even if there is an opportunity to take advantage of people in situations like this, I happily pay for 3G on my phone (to use through my laptop) and ADSL 2+ at home. I generally have no need to take advantage of people out there, but I have in the past chosen not to only because of my set of morals which seem to be in line with many others reading this thread. Each to their own, I can guarantee I do other things that you might actually find morally objectionable.

 

P.S. Sorry if my last post (a page back or two) implied you are an "asshole". I like these forums, didn't mean to offend.

 

Cheers,

DJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how it is possible ...

That is the problem with your arguments thus far. Try and see how it's possible and you might have some chance of understanding the opposing side of the argument.

 

BTW - I plan to test every door in my area. If one is unlocked then I will take that as an invitation to come inside, have a shower, sit in front of their heater or run the air conditioner depending on my mood, lounge around in their clothes (I won't take them though, that would be stealing which is wrong IMHO) and probably eat some of their food although I believe food may be a grey area.

 

While I am there I may also have a look through their photo albums, diaries, letters hell why not even through their underwear drawers - I am just looking so that should be ok.

 

If their car is unlocked and they are not using it, I may take it to go run some errands - so long as it's back before they need it though I haven't inconvenienced anyone albeit they may need to top up some petrol.

 

By your understanding this would all be ok considering that they didn't lock their door and I am not actually depriving them of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world, those of us in IT would probably agree we'd enjoy a world where users were security savvy :-) Or IT-savvy, as it were. I think most people here here would allow for the ideal that users are and should be responsible for their own devices, including the appropriate use and configuration. The reality, though, is that there are people out there who do what we would interpret as silly things (asking where the any key is, left clicking instead of right clicking, and yes, even plugging in an unsecured wireless device) that oftentimes makes us laugh, makes us groan, or just leaves us frustrated.

 

If I seen an open wifi connection, then I will assume that it was left open deliberately, or at the least due to fulfill ignorance, and will make use of that.

I think that the notion of "implied consent" is based on faulty logic. On the surface, taking a specific set of behaviours with a known boundary and extrapolating conclusions beyond the boundary seems, on many levels, to be quite logical. It can also be an example of just one of the ways our brains act like complete dicks to us every day :-) Look at this brain. What an arsehole.

 

I don't think it's necessarily possible to accurately predict or extrapolate another person's intent based on a limited set of current criteria, given that one would necessarily be excluding (through lack of access to) criteria that contribute to the overall situation. One would then be making an uninformed assessment of the situation.

 

edit: spelling

Edited by elvenwhore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×