"What someone might "think" about trespassing and taking water without permission is irrelevent-- what matters is how the property owner sees it."

Yes, and you now assume that the property owner objects? How do you arrive at that conclusion about a hypothetical person? How do you know that the hypothetical person intends the water fountain on his front lawn not to be available to the public?

All of you pretend-lawers should at least learn one legal principle: it is difficult to discuss with certainty the result of a legal case that has not been litigated. Yes, one person has apparently been prosecuted successfully for stealing a wireless signal. For the "experts" who cited this case, I have a question: Is this the only time such a case was brought? What were the results of the other cases? What considerations came into play if it was decided not to prosecute other cases?

Did you know that it is ILLEGAL to go any faster than the speed limit? That means that if you go 36 miles an hour in a 35 mile an hour zone, you are VIOLATING THE LAW. Has anyone here committed that offense? What is your excuse for VIOLATING THE LAW? How do you feel about being known as a LAW BREAKER? What is it like to be a CRIMINAL?

Personally, if I was in a Starbucks and I was checking out what wireless connections were available and there was one I didn't recognize, I would probably click on it hoping to see whether a password was needed or what I needed to access it. Maybe I would get free service if I bought a latte!

But according to the experts here, I would be immoral to try to access that connection that I had never heard of. Bad luck to the new wireless connection providers! Companies that put instructions for joining their service when people try to access their connections are only trying to appeal to CRIMINALS.

I wouldn't be bothered by looking up a map or two on my n800 on someone's unsecured WiFi. Of course, my n800 won't connect to most APs anyways so it's sorta moot.

I think it could be useful to have a code in your essid which qualifies you as happily willing to share your radio waves with others passing by, even without being a fonero.
BTW in my country after 9/11 it is illegal to share a wi-fi connection with anybody you cannot identify - I live in Italy - so this is a case where you'd find in jail both the owner of the access point and the so-called thief.

So why is that different to you assuming the property owner doesn't?

If you knock on someones door and ask them if you can use their wifi, you can solve the whole doubt part.

seeing as I cited that case I assume you mean me. I am not an expert and have no wish to be, but I can read.
The page says that 3 other people have been prosecuted for it.
I know nothing more that that.

Actually as we are talking english law here, breaking the speed limit is covered under civil law and using a wireless network without permission under criminal law. Therefore you aren't a criminal for breaking the speed limit.
And we don't have any 35mph speed limits!

But anyway, your point is what, that we shouldn't have speed limits and go whatever speed we want?

Wow - you really are off on one aren't you?
Someone disagrees with you and they are an expert and a guardian of morality.
I didn't mention morality, I was talking about the law. The law doesn't care whether you think it is right or not, it is just the law.

No, I did not assume what he thinks. Go back and read my post-- you're inserting an assumption that isn't there.

What I'm saying is that law and/or protocol default toward the property owner, so that HE determines what he will or will not allow.

The bottom line in all this blathering bs is that asking permission should be the expected behavior, NOT this inane assumption on the part of legally-uninformed persons that "if it's widely available I automatically have a right to access it". That isn't covered under general precept of law. The important qualifiers here are automatic and right. The property owner has the right to determine access. The user enjoys only privilege in this regard, NOT RIGHT-- and in many cases, that privilege isn't automatic, either.

Now, in the silly water example, I can't say how many property owners may take umbrage at anyone trespassing in order to get a drink. No one can, so hopefully we can take arguments along that line off the table. And odds are a very slight percentage would prosecute over such a minor transgression. BUT: the point remains that the property owner reserves the right.

I am utterly amazed at how difficult that simple concept is for some (generally speaking) to understand. Do we have that many dropouts from Civics 101?

Oh please. Of course I know it's breaking the law, and I probably do it every day. BUT: your example falls quickly apart when posed as anything other than glib sarcasm. If I'm exceeding the speed limit, and I'm pulled over, how far will I get with the officer if I start protesting and arguing semantics? How much weight will my rationalizations carry? "Come on officer, EVERYONE ELSE WAS SPEEDING!"

Fact is, he's going to write me a ticket, rightfully so, and I'm going to have to deal with the consequences of my actions. Been there, done that. So please, let's not bandy about any logical fallacies and stick with relevance and reality. Thanks.

Here, you go. If you're in the states, here's the laws you could be charged with.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm

As a lawyer I'm having trouble with some of the arguments I'm seeing here. Seems to me that the state of the law is extremely open with lots of wiggle room in the statutes. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=399740
is a link to an abstract of an article that pretty thoroughly looks at unauthorized access. If you follow the links you can get to the whole article.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

First off, regulations are not laws. Second, getting legal advice from invisible sources on the internet is never a good idea. Third, a law enforcement officer can arrest and charge you with any thing he/she wants to. An officer of the court decides if it is righteous and that all depends on the jurisdiction.

My take on it is INTENT...

I use any open WiFi connection I find... when I need it.

It is not my intent to defraud anyone. Besides, I do not know the owners intent.

I, for one broadcast an open WiFi access point. My intent is that anyone who needs it can use it.
You can not easily get to my personal files unless you INTEND to as shown by my firewall and router logs.

So basically you can not have your cake and eat it too. If you walk around with tools like Air Crack, et al on your device, well then that is a pretty strong indicator of what your INTENT is.

If you are using the connection so you can't be traced downloading illegal content... well, then that is your INTENT.

If however you power up your device and it automatically connects to any open access point it finds and you check YOUR e-mail using YOUR account information then that pretty much sums up your INTENT, now doesn't it?

LOL, the funniest thing about the locked thread was that there were two (well, maybe more -- I read pgs 1, 2, 7, 8) explicit suggestions to lock the thread...by people who kept exactly restating their position over and over and over.

FWIW in my wealthy neighborhood most of the APs are intentionally open. I stopped asking after I went 3 for 3.

legally, it's a no-no unless you have explicit permission.
technically, I think the process of your device asking permission and their device granting permission covers that concern.
morally, I don't think people realize what their hardware is granting permission to, so I have a hard time pretending the technical argument is a viable high-road.