View Single Post
Old 03-25-2011, 09:35 AM   #49
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBird View Post
Why do things have to be one way or the other? This is a misrepresentation of what I, and others, have been saying. All I am arguing for is that the accuser has to prove the act before punishment. In your scenario, you would not necessarily escape punishment for an unsecured wan; the accuser simply must prove that it was you that did the downloading.

But in the scenario that you are a technically adept pirate, and you pirate on your neighbor's wan, whether it be unsecured or secured with crappy security (WEP...), the accuser would have to prove that it is your neighbor that deserves punishment before punishing him. Otherwise he's an innocent caught in the crossfire.
What troubles me in this, MovieBird, is the idea that people are, in essence, being "rewarded" for their carelessness, by being able to use it as a form of immunity from prosecution. You know as well as I do that, if I have an unsecured network in my house, it's impossible to prove who may or may not have used it. It troubles me deeply that something like this should be able to be used an an excuse to avoid prosecution. All that any pirate has to do is to make sure that he leaves his WiFi unsecured, and he's untouchable? I'm sorry, but that just seems wrong to me.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote