Gentlemen, We should put this topic to sleep now, don't you think?
In short, 3 views. A. Node owner is too stupid = I could use any access point I want B. End user shouldn't just latch on to any open AP, if no visible consent from node owner = theif. C. Node owner should secure own network, if he doesn't he can't complain when people freeload, but community networking groups shouldn't promote such activity. Can we now stop? Thanks, Jacob Farkas NYCwireless List Moderator ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Mino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Kevin M. Agard'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Goal Accomplished That is, quite simply, the stupidest comparison I think I've ever heard>>>> since you obviously don't have the mental capacity to read between the lines, I'll spell it out for you. THERE IS A MANUAL WITH ALL WI-FI PRODUCTS, THE OWNERS OUGHT TO READ THEM. but let us be clear here, it will be theft and doing so makes you a thief.>>>> by creating an 802.11 network without securing it makes you, um, stooped. If one's network is abused, who's door will they come to? The "offender" or the "maintainer"? using any goods or services, regardless of type, without permission or proper authority to do so is wrong and in almost all cases, illegal>>>>> not if they were GIVEN away from the start. By NOT securing one's network, permission is given. In ethics, the question is often asked, "in whose court was the ball last"? Pathetic = ppl that CHOOSE to disregard their responsibilities. So when your car got stolen when you left the keys in it, I suppose you had nothing to do with it right? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Agard Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Goal Accomplished Gabriel Mino wrote: > networks play NO role and are NOT responsible in anyway? I suppose after a > child starves to death, the parents ought not be responsible either. I mean, > after all, the child COULD have found something to eat right!?!?! That is, quite simply, the stupidest comparison I think I've ever heard. By your logic, one could argue that the victim of a mugging is responsible for the mugging simply for walking down the street unarmed or that the family wiped out by a drunk driver are responsible for their own deaths because they should have known that a drunk could be on the road and stayed home. Gabriel, taking or using any goods or services, regardless of type, without permission or proper authority to do so is wrong and in almost all cases, illegal. You can put forward any rationale you like but in the end, it will still be wrong and illegal. Now, just like those whole choose to pirate software, you may choose to use open APs without permission, but let us be clear here, it will be theft and doing so makes you a thief. If you are OK with that, fine, that's your decision. But please don't insult the rest of us by insisting black is white. > Pathetic Yes, you are right, that comparison was also pathetic. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
