You mean, some kind of barrier?
A doorman who lets anyone in isn't much of a barrier, is he?
But yeah, fine, we'll say that it's dependent on there being a barrier, are you happy?
You are using a service that someone else paid for without obtaining permission from that person. That's theft.
The router (doorman) says I have permission.
Which is completely beside the point because web sites hosted on the servers are there to be viewed, dipshit.
That's what the router (doorman) says, too.
Calling you a cunt was obviousely out of line. After all, cunts are useful.
you're hurting my feelings
Nice strawman you got there. And another lame brained attempt at justification for the immoral and probably illegal activity you're advocating.
I never advocated irresponsibility, in fact I called a network administrator that "leaves the door open" an idiot. Of course what you are advocating is taking advantage of someones ignorance, stupidity, and/or niavete. You're no better than some piece of shit con artist that goes around bilking 70 year olds.
Right, doing something that may never have a noticeable impact is equivalent to scamming elderly people out of their life savings. You sure are riled up about this aren't you?
The whole thrust of my argument is that if the router allows access then I must be authorized. It's up to the administrator to set up a barrier of some kind, even the most basic and simple one (i.e. requiring a password) so that people who attempt to connect to a wireless network can know that it is not a public network.
And I personally see nothing inherently wrong with profiting off of stupidity.
On the basis that you don't use other peoples things without their permission, however easy it may be to access them.
But the router says I have permission.
The real point of contention here is that you're taking the stance that a network is like an extension of someone's physical property, and that connecting to that network is equivalent to walking into their house. I disagree completely, as nobody is ever "on" or "in" anywhere; it's all just communication between computers.
And technically, I'm pretty sure using someone else's internet connection would probably constitute 'piracy', not 'theft'.
Furthermore, my argument isn't specifically in support of using other people's internet connections, it's in support of the notion that connecting to someone else's wireless connection is not necessarily wrong. If I
really wanted to piss you off I'd try arguing that my ability to access the internet due to your incompetent administration makes the violation of your TOS with the provider
your fault, but I don't even believe in that.
Stark wrote:Her signals are entering their router? That's the worst logic ever. Does she own other people's mobile transmissions too? Fucking dumb bitch.
She doesn't own them, but she does have a right to set up a scanner and listen to whatever signals enter her home.
Privacy? That's what encryption's for.
The same way you would counter the argument that descrambling a cable TV signal that enters your house is fine because the outlet is on your property.
Cable TV signals are, last I heard, encrypted such that you normally must decrypt by means which the cable provider gives you. As such, while listening to encrypted signals would be OK in my book (yeah I'm sure the cable company would be real upset with someone watching a bunch of garbled crap on their screen), breaking that encryption for personal gain would not.
Alternatively, if you take the view that the coaxial cable running to your property is actually the property of the cable company, then connecting to that cable without authorization could probably be considered wrong.
