Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:22:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
the conclusion you do. But I read your argument as being that having an open wi-fi connection was prima facie evidence of intent to commit crime regardless of whether you were a public advocate or not. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Yes, as you realized later.
So it's the *advocacy* (for the purposes of alibi) which is evidence of wrong-doing?
I said 'reason for me to be suspicious' rather than 'courtroom evidence'.
Not the open windows themselves?
Correct. The vast majority of open WiFi is due to ignorance or insufficient motivation to jump through the hoops needed to add units to a closed network. (I believe this can and should be easier, but that is another topic.)
The other advocated reason is basically to 'stick it to the corporation', under the delusion that it is possible to hurt the fictitious 'legal person' rather than the real people how are owners, workers, and other customers. ISP's price residential service based on average fixed cost and average usage. Multiple homes using one connection push those averages up.
Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
