Moral Dilemma

[Dreadful Scathe]

There are many customers who wander into big computer stores and are told that they can access the Internet from anywhere in their house by using wireless internet. They buy the gear with that purpose in mind, for them, not for the public at large. They are not told that they will be making their connection available to others because the thought would frighten them, and they would be less likely to buy the equipment.

If someone else plugs into your network at best they slow down your connection, they could cost you money, and, at worst end, they could identify your network with nefarious activity and use it to cloak their identity.

Few of us are "sensible" enough to take measures to prevent other people invading our front garden or parking in our driveway. They are equally made freely available.

The shops that sell wireless equipment with that sort of attitude are only in it for the money, PC World are particularly bad. I don't totally blame the people who buy the equipment as they are not warned when they are sold it that it means anyone can access their network - and when they leave their router set to default settings anyone can also identify which computers THEY use to access the net and access them in turn. Its ignorance, plain and simple but despite the misselling of shops its down to the buyers : why do people not see the logical conclusion of "you can access anywhere without a password"...hmmm.

Those analogies don't work too well when we are comparing to publically broadcasting a network, for the "parking in our driveway" analogy to work you would need to have a "please park here sign" and an arrow from the main road Then it would at least be similar.

[Andy McGregor]

One can be prosecuted as theft, the other under the Communications act, stealing bandwidth from either results in a crime.

TA Guy has got it in one. This is not a "Moral Dilemma" at all. In a moral dilemma it is your version of morality that dictates how you should act. In this case, it is the law. And we all know what the law is, however, it's the only law we've got.

... either results in a crime. And should be a crime.

This it what the debate has become, a debate about the law. IMHO this law should be unencessary as it is quite possible to protect your wireless network. Only a fool would not. But, the law is there to protect fools* and is necessary - at least until we can find a way to make foolishness illegal.



*The current way to protect fools is to devise forums so they are distracted and have less time to do foolish things

[bigdjiver]

...Those analogies don't work too well when we are comparing to publically broadcasting a network, for the "parking in our driveway" analogy to work you would need to have a "please park here sign" and an arrow from the main road Then it would at least be similar.

Odd, I have never seen a "Please park here sign", and I was under the, perhaps misguided, impression that what a wireless network broadcasts is the equivalent of "I am your internet driveway". Yours because you have paid for it for your own use.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Odd, I have never seen a "Please park here sign", and I was under the, perhaps misguided, impression that what a wireless network broadcasts is the equivalent of "I am your internet driveway". Yours because you have paid for it for your own use.

A driveway is contained within your property, as is a secure wireless network - you can choose to make either public. If you want people to park in your driveway or use your network, you broadcast that information. Simple really

[bigdjiver]

A driveway is contained within your property, as is a secure wireless network - you can choose to make either public. If you want people to park in your driveway or use your network, you broadcast that information. Simple really

The wireless bands are not public property, each bit is owned. You have bought your own little bit of it when you bought your equipment.