The penny on the street had a disclaimer..it was not used to illustrate unauthorized wifi usage..it was used to illustrate proximity of the offence, per the disclaimer on the original posting. Readers are advised to read the whole posting, as the previous sentences provides the context for proximity.

If the penny was inside a house, undoubtedly it would be a serious offence..hence similar analogies of having a open door, open car door with keys etc..

However, the penny, or a wifi connection is usually encountered outside of the owner's (penny or wifi) property...so now the offence has a different context.

Couple proximity with low intensity (I used a penny to illustrate this, versus 1 GBP or 1 million dollars), the offence of checking emails of another person's wifi connection is of an extremely low magnitude.

There is a larger context in play here, and that is the topic itself... when combined with your oft-mentioned distaste for analogies and subsequent employment thereof it muddies your message. On one hand you want to separate the penny analogy from the wifi usage, and in the next breath you say they're connected. It isn't simply a matter of anyone "not reading" your entire post or ignoring a narrow context... it's about noticing that you often want to have an argument both ways at the same time, Liam1, and when pinned on a point try to squirm out by saying you're not saying what you're saying... then proceed to say it again.

And checking another person's email in ANY context is by no means "low magnitude". As iBall has been saying, see if a position like that makes it past the FBI or similar law enforcement.

But just to be clear: I said the penny analogy falls flat because, regardless of which way you intended to use it, proximity of a penny vis-a-vis one's domicile is just not parallel with proximity of wifi. One hard reason is the fact that, as already stated, it is impractical to expect users to contain their wifi signals (the way a penny can be contained). There are other reasons (some mentioned in this thread), and I'm sure if you actually thought about it, you'd see them. You're a smart guy, just a little misguided it seems.

I really didn't want to use any analogies, but as some posters really like it, the penny analogy would be a better fit to show proximity and magnitude..but note that it is not perfect

A wifi access for $50 a month, translates to 0.002 cents a second. So if I checked my OWN email on a high speed access line, an email download (text only) would translate to a 2 second download, which is about 0.004 cents. However, lets assume that I take a 500 seconds (or 8 minutes), that will translate to 1 penny of free email for me.

Huh, who said anything about checking another person's email?

Thank you for your guidance..

I use aircrack wherever i go, unless there is an open access point.

who cares! This is a stupid thread. People will always use open spots if one is available and they need to connect to the internet - simple as that. Lock your network if you don't want people on it. Stupid as* people. If I don't lock my network and I find someone on it I can't be mad because I left it open. People will always use open internet - why the hell wouldn't you - its just bandwidth left open to share in the first place. Stupid article. Now if someone were hacking into the computers sniffing info, then thats a different story, but just to check your mail... o my gosh - BIG F**KIN deal. Close your network if you are going to complain about it.

You did, of course, or so it appears:

And thank you for the sarcasm.

Eh, has it been beaten to death yet? Lord knows I tried

I thought about this way back and now to see someone arrested seems that there is a law properly in place for this? or not?

If we cannot see Satan the devil, does it mean he does not exist misleading the mids of many?

If WI Fi signals were large metal beams pushing out through our neighbors homes randomly at any given time would that mean trespassing on another persons property, amongst other potentially harmful effects.
Yes what we need to do is arrest the man for using his neighbors metal beam extending thorough his living room as a coat rack!

The fact is there is free airspace that has no "rules" for wireless devices except unless you have a F16 fighter jet flying around North Korea..then air is no longer free anymore especially when you mysteriously get shot down..

If a 16 year old boy kills his sister due to an accident or failed to take precautions when playing around, does he not still go to jail? or is it because his sisters fault for she should have yelled louder when the pain was to excessive?

So 10 years later I now have cancer because it is now proved that linksys, d-link wireless routers produce a dangerous thing called radio waves that can now be determined to be a factor in contributing to worldwide caner like cell phones. Did my neighbor potentially just slowly kill me like that little 16 year old boy? maybe I didn't yell load enough when the pain was overcoming my body?

Enough of this madness soon to end,

There needs to be new laws in place for this sort of thing to protect the consumer and the producer.
Example: As long as im in my house a frequency freely distributed should give the user a choice before the range is extended to them. (contract service agreement ..we "radio station" will push the green button to send you direct signal of 97.3 EASY ROCK) if not you do not get served and you do not get nice tunes or that future cancer.

Wireless routers:
Should have a feature were its not uncontrolled as they are now. They should go from your router and find your devices directly, not broadcasting (and it does not need to be seen in your" available wireless connections" to know its there "Satan")

So to sum things up technically:

My neighbor had just plugged in his brand spanking new router and is excited and ready for some fun! blah I don't need to read the manual. "16year old boy playing with sister"
Shoots out his wireless signal to the whole neighborhood. "Trespassing neighbors property"
Then 5,10,20 years down the road neighbor(s) now has cancer because of wireless signals. "most likely linksys,d-link and others fault or maybe his own cordless phone who knows"

and.. its the neighbors fault to go to jail for eating his neighbors apples that fall freely over to his lawn because the branches come over to his side of the fence.

Cut your branches, put security on your firewall or don't complain your neighbors are eating your apples that fall on his property! until there is a law in place for it. It is not like there is no way to stop someone from getting your internet access.. its call password and encryption protection! Uproot your tree and plant away from there lawn.. sigh yes you have to read the manual!

New laws need to be address for this but sadly until then these types of things will happen till then..

Yup, when posts like that come in at this point, it's obvious that it's a lost cause.

As much as I think you have a fundamental point, good luck with that. The FCC hath spoken.

Oh pot, give it a rest already, your right as usual and we are all not worthy.

Your right, sadly that is the case.