My point was that there's nothing stipulated in the AUP about how much protection I should have on my Internet connection.
Well I don't know which kind of subscription you have, bet the Terms of service Sympatico publish on their websites, seem to indicate that you are entirely responsible for any traffic from users of your account. Which seems to suggest that if you don't have a secured Internet connection, you're the one liable for what other people do with it. Your argument about a lack of power outlets or phone lines doesn't do anything to address my point.
Sure it does. It's a "man on the clapham omnibus" situation. Would the man on the clapham omnibus know that a publicly accessible network, was indeed not public? I seriously doubt that. If getting free electricity was as easy as getting free wireless, would you do it?
My own moral and ethical qualms (as they were) have nothing to do with the legality of the issue. I would say no, but I have my own Internet connection, despite an open relay in my neighborhood, running on at least a 10/10 line. I guess the rest of my argument was OK though, since you said nothing about it?
No. Because the clapham omnibus man knows through media awareness and established law, that piracy is illegal. He's probably just theorising that in the future, internet access will be ubiquitous and free, in the same way that the roads are free.
Roads are not free. Roads are payed for through taxes and tolls. Are you saying that people who drive cars are "stealing" the roads from people who don't drive cars? Because both parties are paying for it, yet people without cars are being deprived of their use. You go and ask the nice Starbucks girl at the counter.
Yeah. Like she would know. Not withstanding me not wanting to go stand in line for 30 minutes. Again. that makes his own downloads take longer, so if nothing else you're stealing his time.
What if he isn't using it? Is it okay to connect to someones unsecured (but otherwise private) wireless AP while they're on holiday for instance? Any evidence of that activity will point back to the IP address of the router, and the owner can end up in serious problems trying to prove it wasn't him/her doing it.
Not really. Most tools for tracking "cybercriminals" (like say the FBI's Carnivore) are much more sophisticated than that. It is therefore expected that any reasonable person is aware of the illegality of using someone elses internet, either by design or by accident.
Rubbish. At least in Denmark the issue has not been widely publicized and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been set a legal precedence yet. Prehaps an anonymous letter through the door :/
Or even better. Print it out on her printer. I'm stealing!!!!
Don't worry, The light police will get to you in time! If some guy has music blasting out, am I stealing?
I'm fairly sure the RIAA would think so. If they could find a way to charge you for other peoples loud music in poor taste, they would. Who in their right mind uses sophisticated hardware or machinery without taking a flick through the manual?
Americans :o> Seriously though, lots of people use things they haven't a clue how to operate. Surely if it's the wifi owners responsibility to secure their connection it's of equal responsibility of unauthorised users not to use it?
Here's the deal though. There's no way you can tell if you're authorized to use an open relay. Sure you can just assume that you're not, but that would be an incorrect assumption in many cases.In Cisco training courses they will tell you that the MOTD when connecting to a router, should display text stating that whether the router is on a private or public network, so as to remove any possible ambiguity. Now this isn't even something you can just arbitrarily find yourself connected to. This is something you need "special" software and training (compared to Mr. Clapham Omnibus) to access, and know the IP in advance in order to see. Why do you think Cisco feels it necessary to point that out? Could it be that it is not always absolutely black or white whether you're allowed to do something or not? Could it be because you could stumble upon it by accident (say by making a typo in the IP when you're trying to connect)?
I think you people need to realize something:
a) Not everyone who has an unsecured AP is a moron.
b) Not everyone who uses an unsecured AP is a jerk.