[ale] [Fwd: Re: wireless at Starbucks]

[Robert Reese~]

>>> Ah, define reasonable.  The car is a good analogy.  My car is
>>> more secure then my neighbors as mine is in my garage, his is
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>> In this case it is reasonable that taking the keys out of the car
>> means you don't want someone using it by the fact that there is a
>> reason for the LOCK on the car's ignition which is to give the
>> owner the opportunity to prevent someone else from using the
>> vehicle. Enforcement of the barrier that lock presents by
>> removing the key inherently says "do not drive me".  Forcibly
>> bypassing the lock barrier again is, to the average person's
>> definition of reasonableness, asserting one's will over the will
>> of the owner. There's also a reason that some insurance companies
>> won't cover vehicle theft if the key is left in it. ;c)
>> Reasonable reasoning, no?
>>
>
> Or, it could mean that "I didn't leave the keys in the car because
> on the same keyring is my house key and I need it to get into my
> house.

True, however that still doesn't cover the reason why there exists something which requires a key to begin with.  Ever wonder why cars need to have keys?  They are S-O-O-O inconvenient, especially when you lose them!!


>> As far as being in the garage versus outside, don't mistake that
>> as more secure.  If your neighbor does not have his key in the
>> vehicle and you do, then in both cases only a single barrier
>> exists to prevent the unauthorized use of the vehicle (assuming
>> your garage door is down and locked).
>
> I subscribe to the 'Bob Toxen rule of rings of security.' :)  Car
> is in the garage, vehicle keys removed, vehicle is locked, garage
> door is down and a camera monitors my driveway. ;) (not to mention
> two 4-legged biological alarm systems roaming the backyard with
> clear view to the driveway.)

EXACTLY!!  Oh, we love the ROT-4 security here too.  And Bob.


>>... thieves were discovered to be brazen enough to actually enter
>> the home via the inside garage door, where most all of them led
>> to the kitchen, and they simply grabbed the keys off the
>> counter/table/keyhook, etc. and drove the vehicle out of the open
>> garage.
>
> Yeah, I lock the door that leads from the garage to the house as
> well.

See?  Even a completely unreasonable person would reasonably reason you have a reason why you don't want someone else driving your car, and have taken more-than-reasonable effort to prevent them from doing so.


>>>> To extend that to your analogy, let's say you don't leave
>>>> your keys in the car, and someone uses their _own_ key in
>>>> your car (there are only about 50 different key cuts needed
>>>> for each door/ignition keyway).  You've take prudent and
>>>> reasonable action to prevent the use of your vehicle.  c)
>>>>
>>> Have you ever seen the show 'bait car?'  Pretty much the same
>>> thing, only the engine isn't running and the doors are closed,
>>> but the keys are there and the doors are not locked.  Take the
>>> car and you're going to jail.
>>
>> Nope, I missed it.  But keep in mind that there is a law
>> prohibiting taking the vehicle.  There is no such law where the
>> internet is concerned, at least not here in Georgia.  OTOH, I'd
>> also argue that the law is unnecessary.  If someone is dumb
>> enough to leave their keys in their car and the doors unlocked,
>> it serves them right. People really shouldn't have a right to be
>> rewarded for or defended against their own stupidity.
>
> If that was the case, there'd be a whole lot of laws removed from
> the books and attorneys would be out of business.  Coffee and
> McDonalds?

And my feelings would be hurt why?  (McDonald's got what they deserved, btw; there are some facts that completely change the gist of the case that aren't well known.)


>>> Just the same, I have printed to a shared printer on one of my
>>> neighbors networks, as a joke.  The output said: "your network
>>> is not secure, call me if you'd like me to help you with that,
>>> you neighbor Geof."  Of course, we were on friendly terms, so
>>> he got a kick out of it.  His wife, on the other hand, didn't
>>> find it humorous at all. ;)
>>
>> Ha!  I'll bet she was wanting to make sure the network was secure
>> after that.  I hadn't even thought to look for a shared printer,
>> and then I probably wouldn't have thought to send them a message
>> in such a manner.  That's a good idea on retrospect, and
>> definitely worth pursuing in the future; at least I'll get to see
>> the look on their face. ;c)
>>
>
> Yeah, and it was really fun when he came to discuss the issue with
> me. ;)

Hey, I got a fantastic print-out for those incidents: "Will Fix Router For Beer".  I see free beer in my future....

R~