On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> I have read more that one person advocating leaving one's wi-fi base >>> open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly' thing to do. >> >> That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by >> paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down >> the street with a laptop and wi-fi). > > Unless the 'neighbor' is your friendly local spam or malware merchant > ;-)
Since they're sending spam through your account, it's the same as you sending the spam, and you're responsible for it. > The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open > and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual > evidence on the hard drives of on-premises machines, then one may claim > that it must have been someone else. On the other hand, if the router is > properly closed, then it will be hard to argue that someone hacked > trough it. > > There are, of course, flaws in this argument, and I take it as evidence > of intention to conduct illegal activity, whether properly so or not. So, if somebody leaves their car unlocked, is that evidence that they were intending to rob a bank and wanted a fast getaway car? If you leave your window open on a hot summer's night, is that evidence that you're planning to fake a burglary? If you leave your knife and fork unattended in a restaurant while you go to the toilet, is that evidence that you intended to stab the waiter and blame somebody else? I assume you would answer No to each of these. So why the harsher standard when it comes to computer crime? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
