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.
Which is no different to what I said. The AUP does not define how secure I need to make it, only that I'm responsible for what is done on it. Bell aren't going to cancel my account because my router only has WEP on it instead of WPA.
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.
Whereas we live in a world where people are not educated enough to secure their WAPs. The problem is that you imply it's OK to assume that a publicly accessible network is intended to be public, when the general expectation in society is that nothing is free. That was my point, so thanks for bringing it up.
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 know exactly what I mean, you're just being argumentative. Of course the roads are not free, that's why I said "in the same way the roads are free". It means that everyone will pay for it in their taxes because it's considered such an important public commodity. But you knew that.
Yeah. Like she would know. Not withstanding me not wanting to go stand in line for 30 minutes. Again.
Actually it's my experience that they either know, or will give you a printed sheet of paper with instructions on how to connect. Most of the people working at those places are university students or people young enough to have a Facebook or MySpace and generally are literate enough to tell you what the SSID is.
The other free WiFi networks have a page that comes up when you first try to browse the web where you have to Agree to some terms and conditions. They also have SSIDs like "FreeInternet" or "Starbucks" or "McDonalds" or "CafeFree".
There are clear differences in assumption that you're choosing to ignore. People generally assume nothing is free. If there are signs up publicising that there is free WiFi, or they are in a public or commercial area with a free signal then it's a safer bet. Just as people are not stupid enough to think that an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition is for public use, surely it's no big stretch for them to realise an open network is not necessarily free.
The reality is that connecting to any network is done at your own risk, and you may end being prosecuted for it, so you owe it to yourself to be informed of what you're connecting to. You're trying to imply that it's OK for the person connecting to be uninformed, but whoever owns the network is at fault for not putting a padlock on their stuff.
If you're in an area with publicly advertised free WiFi, and you happen to stumble upon the wrong network, I'm sure the courts will be far more understanding than the guy in the article that everyone seems to be ignoring for the sake of argument who was wardriving.
Whereas apparently it's OK to abuse the poor computer illiterate person with an open router, you're too stupid to set up your device to not connect automatically to any open network?
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people using unsecured wireless networks with names like Linksys or Netgear are very well aware of the fact that they are connecting to some dopey bugger's network and are just being cheap bastards. These aren't the people downtown or in the airport on laptops, they're the people in your apartment block or your next door neighbours taking advantage.