View Single Post
Old 09-10-2010, 09:36 AM   #40
church mouse
Evangelist
church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.church mouse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
church mouse's Avatar
 
Posts: 485
Karma: 5277078
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Device: Kobo Clara HD, Boox Poke 2, PocketBook Verse Pro (634)
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karthwyne View Post
Actually, yes it is very different. It is more akin to complaining that I am listening to the music someone is blaring at 3am. If the signal is trespassing off of the originator's property, they don't have much right to complain if someone casually intercepts it.

If the person trespasses ONTO the property where the wifi is in order to use it, then it is like the situation you described.
These comparisons are odious.

You have no idea, if you make unauthorised use of someone's wi-fi, what financial (or other) cost that may have to the person whose set-up you are using.

A hypothetical extreme (I like hypothetical extremes, because if the extreme seems ok then no problem, if the extreme seems wrong then look at your principle) - X has an ISP who charges for every Mb of usage, Y picks up X's unsecure wi-fi signal and downloads a ton of stuff, leaving X with a bill he cannot afford to pay.

Does anyone truly not see this as wrong conduct on the part of Y? If wrong for Y, then wrong full-stop it seems to me.
church mouse is offline   Reply With Quote