Is this really how you gauge the morality of your actions, by assessing them against what other people think and what other people allegedly might do? Does the phrase “the right thing to do” have any resonance at all with you?
Remind me not to have any sort of trust-based transactions with you, ever. Thanks.
Yes, but those laws were designed to encourage people to protect their home networks against outside and unauthorized use. The “third party” provisions of those laws apply to people outside of the apartment who make unauthorized use of the network without the owner’s use. They weren’t really designed to apply to people using the network from inside, with the express permission and authority of the owner, and under a rental or vacation type of arrangement.
And it’s interesting that you’re happy to get all legalistic about this particular aspect of German internet use, in order to emphasize the owner’s responsibility for securing his network, while also doing everything possible to minimize your own responsibility for what you actually did on his network.
And it’s interesting that you would complain about frivolous lawsuits while also engaging in legal nitpicking that seeks to blame the owner for not properly securing his network and allowing you to undertake your illegal activity.
It’s not about whether it’s unusual. It’s not even really about whether it’s a crime. It’s about responsibility for the consequences of actions.
Let’s take your weed analogy for a moment.
I think that smoking weed should be legal. I think that laws against it are stupid. And i even have no problem with people smoking weed illegally, in jurisdictions where weed is banned. It’s up to them whether or not they want to take the risk. While i don’t smoke weed myself, i have been to countless parties and other gatherings in my life where people were smoking weed in violation of the law.
But if i stayed in a person’s house and smoked weed in their house, and they then received a fine from the police or from a home-owners association (or whomever) for smoking weed on the premises, then i like to think that i would have the moral integrity to cough up the fine. It might be painful to hand over 500 euros for something that you deem to be essentially harmless, and that you can do without consequence in your own home, but that’s not the point. I understand that you might prefer not to pay, but once the fine has been levied, then the person morally responsible for paying it is the person who actually carried out the activity that led to the fine.
You seem to recognize this concept in the abstract, so i don’t understand for the life of me why you’re investing so much time and energy trying to talk your way around your responsibility here.
Especially since he said he’d pay the fine, but is still trying to convince himself that it’s OK not to.
Sheesh! I misread the thread title as, “Illegal fleshlighting”. :smack: