Wireless Banditos!
So this guy is getting criminal charges pressed against him for using someone else's unsecured wireless network. It's an interesting case, but I can't help but think it's bogus. If I open my eyes and walk by someones house and see a painting of a Picaso inside, that's their problem. If they don't want me to see it, close the shades! If you have a wireless network w/o encryption or security, why should it be a crime for someone to surf on it?
posted by chewie at 4:04 PM
3 Comments:
I agree
9:48 PM
Your metaphor hardly applies. Two examples (and you're smart C ... I'm sure you might think of more):
1. "Use" of the painting through a window cannot result in extra charges by the owner. If, however, the owner's service plan is based on bandwidth usage, it could.
2. A painting - although I'm sure someone exceedingly creative could find a way - cannot be a channel of criminal activity that the owner would be responsible for (or, at least, the owner would have to go through great pains to relieve their self of the responsibility).
Now one could argue a owner must perform their due diligence in researching a product before purchasing. And that it's the responsibility of the owner to secure their belongings. But come on, companies that sell these products tout how quick and easy they are to use. It's not inconceivable that someone would setup an insecure wireless network with no comprehension of the security implications. I'll be as bold to say this happens every day. The better solution is to put some responsibility on the manufacturers and have the networking equipment default to the highest security settings. Only then can a consumer degrade the security of their network with numerous and bright screens of warnings as to how this might affect the network.
But I digress. Plain and simple, using someone else's wireless is STEALING. Not that I haven't done it, but I know I'm responsible for using an open network just as I would be responsible for tapping into my neighbor's cable.
10:51 PM
Why do I have a hard time w/ the concept of "stealing" when it involves non-tangibles, and more importantly, when it is not directly depriving the owner? You're right, Abe - and you raise good points. You've almost convinced me! If the owner does have to pay for their bandwidth, then it IS wrong and I can see how that can be prosecutable. (I hadn't thought of that!).
I like your solution to the problem.
5:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home