Comments on: Why Lev Grossman of TIME Is Wrong About WiFi Theft

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:38:29 +0000

Sorry, but you are just trying to justify theft. WiFi theft (and it IS theft) does cause damage, it damages all the businesses who sell legitimate Wireless access.

Theft is Theft, and no amount of justifying it will make it right. People will continue to do it, and very few will ever be prosecuted for it, but that doesn't make it right.

By: gregory

gregory — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:55:17 +0000

That's not the argument at all. wireless beams replace themselves. maybe if
you threw your cigarettes through my window would be more accurate.
regardless, as I said in the piece the laws quoted aren't accurate.

By: WillyWireless

WillyWireless — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:47:54 +0000

Ah, I see your logic. So if I read you correctly, then if I leave my lawn mower in the front yard, you or the neighbors are free to take it and use it. I forget to lock my car, therefore I'm stupid and it's not theft if someone takes the car. Right. I didn't lock my front door, so it's OK to come in, get a snack from the fridge and watch some Dish because I didn't have a big NO TRESPASSING sign on the front door? I left my cigarettes on the dash with the window down – help your self. Oh wait, that's burglary of a motor vehicle. Theft is theft – it ain't yours, leave it alone. Geez, get real.

By: monty

monty — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:59:45 +0000

I live in britain , so let me give you my take.As we all know the there can be dangerous unrestricted places on the web for kids.If someone is using wifi and it enters my house it does so without my consent,therefore there is a duty of care on the network owner to prevent it from potentially being harmful to my kids ,they are responsible for it.the default position must be to secure it,anything less is at best negligent.This changes the position of not choosing to secure to one of making a choice to not secure a network,this choice to make a network accessible implies consent to use the network.

By: uh,huh

uh,huh — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:20:10 +0000

Funny that anyone would argue about Time magazine’s articles. Of course it’s baloney, it’s mainstream media, right? You might as well debate articles from the Onion.

By: gregory

gregory — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:55:39 +0000

@website design

The responsibility of protecting your wireless network or your property lies squarely on the shoulders of the person who owns it. In many cases, people leave their wireless networks open because they want to share it. Just like in many cases people who own land in the country do not post no-trespassing signs because they allow anyone to camp and hunt on their land.

Beyond that, TIME cites laws that don’t apply to the matter and gets even basic facts wrong. Until the matter has firm legal precedence it’s still up in the air on whether it’s truly illegal. If you don’t want people on your network than password-protect it.

By: website design

website design — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:04:46 +0000

Why are generation y always trying to convince themselves they have the right to do whatever they want with other people’s stuff?

Someone else’s wifi is not yours, no court is going to believe you have some inherent right to secretly use someone’s wireless network just because it’s there and you’re special.