Comments on: UK 3 strikes plan risks ’superhighway robbery’: ISP

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:53:05 +0000

(Careful, Crosbie, Sony or Rockstar North might be listening in.)

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:58:45 +0000

Rabbit80, that’s the same argument used against file-sharing. Why purchase a copy if my neighbour can give me one?

Why pay for my own room to be lit to read a book if I can sit underneath a street lamp and do so?

You’re missing something…

Rty56, it’s possible you may be mistaking naivety for enlightenment. It is fear bred from the darkness of ignorance that makes the world a nightmare to live in, not naivety.

If you attempt to prevent people communicating their thoughts you end up persuading them to resort to violence as a means of expression instead. The true perversion of our times is to believe that the exchange of ideas is not only dangerous, but causes violence. Why even now I’m downloading GTA IV and thus accelerating my descent into depravity, both in terms of illegal file-sharing and an indulgence in violent fantasy. At least, this is how you appear to prefer such activity to be seen.

By: Rty56

Rty56 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:11:04 +0000

@crosbie , youre living in a naive dreamworld , its a utopia for people using other peoples connections as noted above for free and the implications for downloading the wrong sort of porn using anothers connection is massive – and before you naively point out , that you can just point to someone else as your wifi isnt secure and couldnt have been you , you can try telling that to all your neighbours who think you are now a pedo . This site seems to attract people who live in naive arrogant worlds , fight the Wrongs with facts not naive utopianisms .

By: Rabbit80

Rabbit80 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:19:02 +0000

@Crosbie

I’m not too sure I agree with you – what is then to stop me from using my neighbours wireless internet instead of purchasing my own?

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:17:00 +0000

It’s about time people rid themselves of the peculiar brainwashing that persuades people that they need to protect the Internet from ‘unauthorised’ access and so should ’secure’ their WiFi access point against use by anyone else in range.

Duh? The whole point of wireless security was to prevent drive-by access to corporate intranets, not the Internet. The Internet is supposedly meant to be available to every single member of the public still in possession of a right to free speech.

By all means, people should secure their own intranets, or PCs, etc., but that doesn’t mean they should try and prevent Joe Public getting a wifi connection to the Internet, nor does it mean they should join some cockamamie scheme to sell their wifi access such that passers by have to pay for it.

WAP manufacturers should have provided two standard connections, one bandwidth-limited for public use, and a default, unlimited one for the device owner. It’s a great pity they’re now defaulting to ’secured’, i.e. no free Internet for passers by.