Posted on 05/31/2007 12:51:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Beats me, but every coffee shop with wifi I've ever seen has big SIGNS inside and out saying "Free Wifi" or something to that effect. I'm assuming that this shop would have similarly advertised their service.
But it could be argued that by merely choosing to broadcast the SSID and choosing not to secure and encrypt it, you're authorizing anyone to use it.
How is this any different than me walking door to door checking locks?
If you allowed others to use it as a normal part of your business, yes.
Them Tax Revenuers will go after anyone who isnt paying their taxes to the government. Why do you think all the cable companies and phone companies have started adding WEP and WPA to all their WiFi set ups...to stop the freeloaders.
and at a 30% tax, the governments want that cash too!
Y’all are SCARY with your statist, near fascist views. Real scary. Especially the first 2 that I pinged.
And it pizzes me off because it’s people like you that give real conservatives a bad name. When you see the deranged lefties talking about how the right wants to totally control their lives... well they are not talking about this kind of thing... and they are totally nuts... but it’s this kind of thing that makes it harder to dispute their claims.
People like you really scare me. As you should. Every decent, law abiding conservative should be scared of people like you.
2) Maybe they knew about his bagpipe playing and decided to be overzealous to stop him from bagpipe playing...
Do you own the territory you broadcast in?
You would be breaking an encryption scheme if you did that. In no way is that giving the public access.
You are correct. Some people are just “jack booted thugs” at heart or just too stupid to understand a few basic facts.
You mean if you left your car unlocked with the keys in it you are giving permission for anyone to drive off with it?
True. They are probably both idiots. Most businesses will eventually offer this service for free. I just don’t see what the big deal was. There must have been much more than what was reported.
If this guy was running a nic in promiscuous mode and just listening I would agree with you but he was also broadcasting to it and in doing so using a tangible commodity, bandwidth.
My father taught me the difference between right and wrong. This was reinforced by my priest over many years in that I should not covet my neighbors property. I recognize the ownership of that bandwidth and I respect that owner enough not to take it without asking.
You sir are very wrong and owe us an apology.
If you also post a sign on it that says, "use this car for free," then yes, you are granting permission.
“In both cases, neither party who is “stolen” from actually loses anything measurable. In the former case, you could argue that the artist loses potential revenue they’d have otherwise received from purchase of their music, but that assumes that any of the downloaders would have actually paid for it.
In this case, the guy might be misusing their parking area (taking up a space that could go to a paying customer), but the store is certainly not losing anything through his internet use unless they pay by the MB (highly unlikely).”
I’m speaking from an idealogical viewpoint, ie the concept of private property. Totalitarianism is where there are no private property rights and to me that is the road we are on by disrespecting private property. You have to admit a lot of the people downloading music think they have a right to it. A lot of people think they have a right to use any internet signal they can connect to. What I’m saying is remember even if internet access is “free” never forget someone is paying the bill. Remembering that you are not paying the bill, someone else is should generate some respect on your part for the person paying the bill. It is pretty sad that the exact opposite is often the case.
When someone else thinks they have a right and actually uses what I produced through my blood sweat and tears without my permission that makes me their slave doesn’t it?
When he broadcast back to the hot spot he is invading their business..
Starbucks offers free Internet to attract customers. It does get him close to their store, where he's likely to be more tempted to buy their coffee than if he wasn't there. It's a pretty fuzzy area I think.
If I hire a the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to hang out and dance in front to attract attention to my burger joint I can't complain about people coming to look and not buy my burgers.
It’s not even remotely comparable. It’s more like you left your keys in the car with the radio playing, and someone came along and listened to your radio from outside the vehicle. No one stole the router, or drove off in it.
Sure it is.
You could also argue that taking a straw from a street vendor's dispenser is the same thing as stealing a new Porsche. Both are theft.
...but that analysis hides the glaring differences too.
The "theft" of free WiFi service has these characteristics, in this case:
There are lots of differences between "theft" of free WiFi service and illegal immigration. It's absurd and disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.