I'm usually the first one to piggyback on random open Wifi if I need to get online really quick to check email or something like that when I'm on the go, however, depending on someone else's connection as your full time home internet is just a bit over the top and wrong.
I'm surprised anyone would recommend using someone else's net this way. Even if you look past the moral issues...
- You never know when it'll stop working. - It will be slow; you're sharing limited bandwidth AND their access point is likely far away - They can easily spy on your network traffic if they're technically inclined.
So yeah.. there's so many reasons this is wrong...this guy was completely clueless. :)
Not to mention if you're streaming downloads off your pirated Internet connection, they may be upset that their latency is suddenly in seconds instead of milliseconds, realize that it's because someone not in their house is downloading, and switch to password protection.
Or they'll be cranky when they get a DMCA extortion letter or the feebs investigating criminal activity, and have to hire a lawyer, and five years and two mortgages, retirement plans and a house later they finally manage to prove it was their neighbor. :-(
While I worked for a Broadband company in the early 2000s, we had a guy call in and complain that he lost service...seems that his neighbor had caught him splicing the line, and now the original guy wanted to know if there was anyone else in his apartment building that had our service!
Wow it has been a while since i read one of your posts. Sorry you have to put up with this sort of thing. One question i meant to ask for a long time and don't mean to bother you either but, why was i taken out from your friends' list? It has been a long time but i think we were connected at some point. Would be nice if that were the case again. That is, if you want.
Apples and oranges. Using someone's broadcast signal does not involve entering onto someone's property, nor is any physical object being removed. The wireless signal is being broadcast outside the house, onto the street and into the neighbors' houses.
If a neighbor decides to display artwork so that it's visible from the street, does it then become the responsibility of passersby not to view that artwork without his permission?
If a neighbor decides to display artwork so that it's visible from the street, does it then become the responsibility of passersby not to view that artwork without his permission?
So...you're countering one rhetorical slippery slope with another rhetorical slippery slope, that has essentially the same root meaning. Not exactly what I'd call apples and oranges.
I self identify as a socialist and that's all 'socialist' means to me. Everything else beyond that is a privilege, nice to have but society has no obligation to provide it.
Even food, shelter and medicine cost something. Somebody somewhere in society has to bear the cost. If it's socialism rather than charity, then somebody has to be forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to pay. Who should be forced to pay? How much should they pay? How much bang for the buck are you getting? How do you determine who's a worthy recipient? What unintended consequences are you creating? You'd better have really good answers to all of these questions before you can even think about justifying what would under any other circumstances be considered THEFT
( ... )
Comments 36
I'm surprised anyone would recommend using someone else's net this way. Even if you look past the moral issues...
- You never know when it'll stop working.
- It will be slow; you're sharing limited bandwidth AND their access point is likely far away
- They can easily spy on your network traffic if they're technically inclined.
So yeah.. there's so many reasons this is wrong...this guy was completely clueless. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If a neighbor decides to display artwork so that it's visible from the street, does it then become the responsibility of passersby not to view that artwork without his permission?
Reply
So...you're countering one rhetorical slippery slope with another rhetorical slippery slope, that has essentially the same root meaning. Not exactly what I'd call apples and oranges.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment