# The kinda bullshit we deal with, or love your computer tech. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 8, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017 "2010-09-08T04:06:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elninost0rm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ed655f/32.png) [@elninost0rm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elninost0rm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/81 "2010-09-13T12:46:04Z")
> [@astro](#): > > > [@elninost0rm](#): > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > I have built PCs from the ground up. I have troubleshooted more problems than I care to mention. I have fixed PCs for other people on numerous occasions. I’ve even been paid for my services (not as any sort of business or anything, though). > > > > I’m definitely relatively savvy, and I still use wired connections to this day. I simply do not trust the signal strength of WiFi. Some people swear by it, but I don’t mind a few LAN cables strewn about if it means I’ll have solid, uninterrupted transmission. > > > > This would mean, of course, that they’d have a wired connection for you to use. I’ll give you that, but don’t dispel someone as being an idiot simply because they don’t have internet access. Plenty of people are on a tight budget. > > It’s 2010 and you don’t trust a wifi connection to deliver intact binaries to your computer? Wow… just wow. I’ve been hip deep in more desktop and notebook hardware guts and thorny driver issues than I ever want to think about and that’s just silly. I mean like cuckoo silly. You missed my point. It’s not about the security or packet loss issues. I just have personally felt that speeds are affected by wireless transmission. I’ve had interruption problems, etc. For me, they have been far more concrete than “cuckoo” speculating. YMMV. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > No it makes sense, sort of. When a wired option and a wireless option are both viable it is good security to go with the wired solution. Further a gigabit ethernet cable can kick 802.11n’s ass in raw speed, if convenience isn’t so much a factor. > > Further WiFi does use the public spectrum 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz ranges. I’ve never had a problem, but things like wireless tv distribution systems and old school cordless phones can cause interference. > > That said interference generally just lowers the speed, seldom drops the connection assuming it’s within a hundred feet, and definitely doesn’t scramble data. The exception is tv distribution systems. Those things trash the spectrum. TCP/IP has a checksum in the packet (assuming he’s not using UDP, and why would he if reliability is a concern?). This means if a packet is scrambled it’ll be dropped and resent. Further if encryption is enabled the packet will be encapsulated in an encryption packet with a integrity value (IV) check. Meaning it’s protected from corruption by two layers of encapsulation. QFT for emphasis. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/82 "2010-09-13T13:13:17Z")
I used to do computer support. Now I support them along with other duties, but my primary focus isn’t supposed to be on the computer (no matter how often it ends up that way). I’ve had people; \>Spill a large coffee on their laptop and then demand we replace it. \>Demand we replace their computer because their email account isn’t working. \>The woman who demanded that we replace her computer because ‘it isn’t working’, and when I check the records, I find she’s called in over 60 times in 30 days and every goddamned call was because she couldn’t figure out how to do something. Take a course or return the computer, you’re too fucking stupid to own one. \>Delete important files and then demand that we compensate them several times the cost of the computer because it is somehow our fault that they didn’t know what that file was. \>I loved the guy who was so completely paranoid that he kept going down the list of important OS files, demanding to know WHO installed them and then deleting them, even when I told him not to. He would watch his bluetooth list, see people’s bluetooth headsets or phones appear on the list as they walked past his apartment, and then claim that this meant they were hacking into his computer. When I told him he’d probably have to reinstall his OS after deleting those files, he simply declared that if he had to do that, he would delete those files again. \>The woman who bought a 10 year old specialty software program from a flea market and then demanded that we make it work on her computer. \>People who called in with computers 3,5, even 10 years out of warranty and demanded that we replace it or upgrade it for free. Bonus points for pulling out the “But I’m a loyal customer” card. It still won’t get you a free computer. \>“I’m using your computer with these three other pieces of hardware (that you don’t make) and this software package (that you don’t make), and I can’t get it to work. You’re going to get it to work right now or I’m complaining to your company about you and I’ll never buy another one of your products again! Oh, and I’m going to insult and belittle you every step of the way, because you have to put up with it.” (Hint: No, I don’t.) ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/83 "2010-09-13T13:38:43Z")
> [@elninost0rm](#): > > > [@astro](#): > > > > It’s 2010 and you don’t trust a wifi connection to deliver intact binaries to your computer? Wow… just wow. I’ve been hip deep in more desktop and notebook hardware guts and thorny driver issues than I ever want to think about and that’s just silly. I mean like cuckoo silly. > > You missed my point. It’s not about the security or packet loss issues. I just have personally felt that speeds are affected by wireless transmission. I’ve had interruption problems, etc. For me, they have been far more concrete than “cuckoo” speculating. > > YMMV. “Personally measured”, not felt. It’s quantifiable. ---
**Author:** ![elninost0rm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ed655f/32.png) [@elninost0rm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elninost0rm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/84 "2010-09-13T14:10:05Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > > [@elninost0rm](#): > > > > You missed my point. It’s not about the security or packet loss issues. I just have personally felt that speeds are affected by wireless transmission. I’ve had interruption problems, etc. For me, they have been far more concrete than “cuckoo” speculating. > > > > YMMV. > > “Personally measured”, not felt. It’s quantifiable. Sigh. Of course it’s quantifiable. Thank you for that technicality. It’s also easy to distinguish with the naked eye if speeds are suffering (for WHATEVER reason, like I said, YMMV). To say that I would need a program to quantifiably test my internet speeds in no way refutes my claim that WiFi has performed less than admirably for ME. Glad WiFi works well for others, but I never liked it much. It works fine, sure, and probably works at 100% most of the time when compared to a wired connection. I’ve just had mixed results. Much easier to run a cable through a few ceiling panels and never have to worry about it again. Just IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/85 "2010-09-13T15:10:52Z")
> [@elninost0rm](#): > > Unless it differs from state to state, I was under the impression that using unsecured wireless internet for any reason is theft, even if you are harmless and providing a service using it. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We’ve had several long threads about the legality of stealing unsecured wi-fi. The upshot appears to be that while it’s technically illegal, nobody has actually been prosecuted for it (though several people have been prosecuted for doing illegal things _while_ accessing somebody else’s network). Everything I’ve read says you’re both 100% wrong. AFAIK, **any unsecured WiFi network is automatically assumed to be open for public use**. If you don’t want people leeching your bandwidth, put a password on it (and, ideally, stop broadcasting its name, too). Here’s [a cite from an FCC spokesperson](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050613/news_lz1b13canned.html): > [@](#): > > Schlichting said the FCC has no regulations against using an unsecured wireless signal that is “transmitted into the public domain.” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/86 "2010-09-13T15:39:28Z")
> [@Ace309](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > I do. > > So what are you bitching about? Not my thread. I m not bitching. Why so hyper sensitive. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/87 "2010-09-13T15:47:38Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Why so hyper sensitive. Judges? Oooooh, I’m sorry, **gonzo** , the response we were looking for was, “lol u mad bro?” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/88 "2010-09-13T16:15:20Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > AFAIK, **any unsecured WiFi network is automatically assumed to be open for public use**. If you don’t want people leeching your bandwidth, put a password on it (and, ideally, stop broadcasting its name, too). > > Here’s [a cite from an FCC spokesperson](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050613/news_lz1b13canned.html): > > > [@](#): > > > > Schlichting said the FCC has no regulations against using an unsecured wireless signal that is “transmitted into the public domain.” That’s how I think it should work, but I’ve participated in several threads in which I’ve been told that doing so is illegal. So I’ll be glad if the legal situation has changed. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/89 "2010-09-13T16:33:22Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > That’s how I think it should work, but I’ve participated in several threads in which I’ve been told that doing so is illegal. So I’ll be glad if the legal situation has changed. Told by whom? Someone pulling it out of their ass? Did they have \*any \*cites at all other than “this is how I think it should be”? Because AFAIK it’s \*\*\*never \*\*\*been illegal. Note that the article I posted was from _five years ago_. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/90 "2010-09-13T16:34:13Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > That’s how I think it should work, but I’ve participated in several threads in which I’ve been told that doing so is illegal. So I’ll be glad if the legal situation has changed. Well, the thing is that, no matter what the FCC says, some states have their own rules that are more stringent. A guy in Michigan a few years ago got a fine and community service (but theoretically faced prison time) for sitting outside a cafe and using their wireless internet without their permission. The guy got the fine and community service by pleading out. There were commentators at the time who believed that, had he fought, he probably could have beaten the charge altogether. Here’s the [Michigan statute](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-794) that i believe he was charged under: > [@](#): > > A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. What you have to determine, i guess, is whether checking your email using an internet cafe’s wireless, without going inside to actually buy something, constitutes defrauding or "obtain[ing] money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. " Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, especially considering how easy it would be for the cafe to actually secure its connection to prevent non-customers from gaining access. A cafe i go to changes its password every day, and the password is printed on your receipt when you buy your coffee and pastry. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/91 "2010-09-13T16:44:35Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > What you have to determine, i guess, is whether checking your email using an internet cafe’s wireless, without going inside to actually buy something, constitutes defrauding or "obtain[ing] money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise. " > > Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, especially considering how easy it would be for the cafe to actually secure its connection to prevent non-customers from gaining access. That’s exactly the point. It’s so easy to secure a network that any unsecured network is automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all. Otherwise, how are truly free WiFi networks to be indicated? If you don’t want people to access your wireless connection without your permission, put a fucking password on it. Period. Otherwise, anyone else may use it anytime they like, and you don’t get to bitch. I mean, it would be like accusing someone of theft for eating a mint out of a bowl on a reception desk, as though that were the same thing as standing out in the hallway and rocking the vending machine to get a free candybar. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/92 "2010-09-13T16:51:35Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > > > That’s how I think it should work, but I’ve participated in several threads in which I’ve been told that doing so is illegal. So I’ll be glad if the legal situation has changed. > > Told by whom? Someone pulling it out of their ass? Did they have \*any \*cites at all other than “this is how I think it should be”? Because AFAIK it’s \*\*\*never \*\*\*been illegal. Note that the article I posted was from _five years ago_. **Bricker** , for one. See [post 46](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6054613&postcount=46) in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=311784), for one, in which he cites a particular Virginia law. Note that the thread is five years old, so things may have changed. [Another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=294176), this one from 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/93 "2010-09-13T17:20:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The reseat costs $1. The other $64 is knowing where. And you should also be grateful that they didn’t screw you by charging you for a video card because the one that was in it when you brought it in was totally blown. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/94 "2010-09-13T17:53:26Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > That’s exactly the point. It’s so easy to secure a network that any unsecured network is automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all. But it’s not quite the point, is it? While i agree with you about the moral or ethical issue, and i believe that it should not be a crime to access unsecured networks, you are stretching the point when you say that “any unsecured network is automatically considered, **from a legal standpoint** , to be open to all.” That is a legal assertion, and it’s one that appears to be factually incorrect. The Virginia law cited by **Bricker** in the thread linked by **Dewey Finn** is still in effect. Here’s the [statute](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-152.6). The Wikipedia entry on [Legality of Piggybacking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking) cites four cases, from four different states, where someone was charged with a crime for using an unsecured wireless connection. In at least two of those cases, the person charged actually received a sentence of a fine and either probation or community service. If a court fines you and puts you on probation for using an unsecured network, then it seems pretty clear that an unsecured network in that jurisdiction is NOT “automatically considered, from a legal standpoint, to be open to all.” For more than you ever wanted to know about the issue, check out [this article](http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume67/number5/bierlein.pdf) (PDF): Matthew Bierlein, “Policing the Wireless World: Access Liability in the Open Wi-Fi Era,” _Ohio State Law Journal_, 67 (2006), pp. 1123-1186. Bierlein notes that laws regarding this issue vary from one jurisdiction to another, and also observes that many statutes are simply not very clear about what level of intrusion might constitute a crime: > [@](#): > > Federal and state laws in the area of unauthorized access present a > confusing regime of statutes with varying scope. At the federal level, the > Computer Fraud and Abuse Act18 may be construed to encompass > unauthorized access conduct. State laws vary significantly; some states > appear to absolve users from liability for open wireless access, while other > states set a low threshold of conduct for liability to attach. But the majority > of state statutes remain unclear as to users’ culpability for accessing an open > wireless network. The common law further complicates matters—some > courts have shown a willingness to extend doctrines that have traditionally > applied solely to tangible property, to encompass a variety of conduct on the > Internet. > > pp. 1125-1126 After a section on the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Bierlein looks at the ways in which the states incorporate statutes about wireless access into their laws. He notes that states use differing _mens rea_ terminology in their laws, and also vary in determining which terms the _mens rea_ applies to. Most states, however, “apply the mens rea to the access phrase” of their statutes, while others apply it to the authorization part of the law. The different wording leads to different requirements for criminal prosecution. In some states, you have to show that the person accessing the network _knows_ that the access is not authorized. In others, this is not the case: > [@](#): > > Additionally, the state of Utah appears to have eschewed a mens rea requirement and made unauthorized access a strict liability offense. > > p. 1139 This is an important issue, because _mens rea_ is a central factor in defining criminal intent in the legal system. He notes that, while most states hae pretty clear definitions of what “access” means, “few states define what constitutes authorization.” > [@](#): > > The states that do provide definitions vary in the scope of conduct > encompassed by the term. Some states define authorization as requiring the > express consent of the owner. Other states base the definition on a > reasonableness standard or implied consent. Still other states define authorization > generically in terms of consent or permission. Unfortunately, > state case law does little to illuminate the meaning of authorization. The few > state cases that have addressed authorization have arisen primarily in the > context of employee misconduct. In some states, the determination of > unauthorized access ends the inquiry—liability attaches upon satisfaction of > these terms. However, many states require damages for users to be culpable > under state law. > > pp. 1142-1143 He goes on to talk about the different ways that states deal with the issue of harm and damages, noting the wide variety of requirements from state to state, and the differing levels of punishment based on differing levels of harm or damages. > [@](#): > > For example, Delaware delineates > five degrees of unauthorized access. The highest level of offense is a class > D felony and applies “when the damage to or the value of the property or > computer services affected exceeds $10,000.” The lowest level offense, a > class A misdemeanor, applies where the damage or value of the property at > issue is $500 or less. > > p. 1144 Interestingly, he notes that New York’s statute about unauthorized use: > [@](#): > > only applies where the accessed > computer “is equipped or programmed with any device or coding system, a > function of which is to prevent the unauthorized use of said computer or > computer system.” Unless owners or operators protect their computer > networks, the statute does not apply. New York represents the extreme by > essentially imposing requirements on network operators, but a number of > states offer avenues for users to avoid liability. > > p. 1144 Other states give defendants the opportunity to avoid punishment > [@](#): > > by showing > that they had reasonable grounds to believe that their access was > authorized or could not have reasonably known that their access was > unauthorized. > > p. 1145 Note that, despite all of his discussion about the different statutes, Bierlein agrees with you and me about what the law _should_ be. He says that his article: > [@](#): > > …argues in favor of presumptively legal access for open wireless networks. > > p. 1127 And that’s the key here. It’s one thing to argue that open networks _should_ be fair game for anyone who wants to use them, but it’s simply wrong to argue that open networks _are_ open to everyone “from a legal standpoint,” because many states do, in fact, make access to such networks illegal. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/95 "2010-09-13T18:30:13Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > That argument is not new, but some "so called " repairs do not deserve 65 bucks whether your expertise found it or not. Your just beginning apprentice ,with very little expertise, could have found it too. Like it or not the vast majority of repairs are not rocket surgery, and in my case it sometimes takes several hours to figure out exactly what the breakdown is. The $65 diagnosis type scenario (its $49 in my shop) does not differentiate between 4 minutes of diagnosis and 4 hours of diagnosis and its also why we very rarely will start on a computer in front of the customer because when it turns out to be something simple they start grousing about the price. Replacing a bad power supply is also a very common and easy to diagnose and resolve problem, in some cases I have done it while the customer waits, but I also blow it out, fire it up, check startup tasks and fragmentation, few other basic tuneup type tasks. Also part of what you are paying for is general overhead to check you in, check you out and collect payment, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/96 "2010-09-13T18:30:44Z")
It seems to me that most states are simply \*ambiguous \*about unsecured networks. Do any of them \*explicitly \*ban people from accessing a WiFi network that has not been secured with a password? Or is it all more crap like Briker’s cite about “obtain[ing] computer services without authority”? Because, to my layperson’s eye, that says absolutely nothing about accessing an \*unsecured \*network. There are plenty of reasons that someone may wish to allow other people to access their WiFi network without charge or other authorization, and the easiest way to do that is to leave it unsecured. Conversely, the easiest way to prevent people from using your WiFi connection without your permission is to apply a password, which takes approximately five fucking seconds. See my analogy upthread about taking a mint out of a candy bowl on a reception counter–is there any jurisdiction where I could be legitimately charged with theft for doing so? The fact that the bowl is left out in a public place is, ISTM, tacit approval of my helping myself to a treat. Likewise, leaving a WiFi connection unsecured is tacit approval for anyone else to make use of that connection’s bandwidth without further obligation or authorization required. A handful of people may have be fined, but that doesn’t mean that if they would have fought the charges that the courts wouldn’t have agreed that the fact of a WiFi network being unsecured \*does \*imply consent on the part of its owner for anyone else to make use of it. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/97 "2010-09-13T19:20:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@drachillix](#): > > > > I will happily check it in, then find EVERYTHING wrong with it. > > Ouch!! I suspect you are actually to honest for that. Fortunately for him…yes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/98 "2010-10-01T19:18:30Z")
Bumping to note that the OP now appears in [The ComputerWorld Shark Tank](http://blogs.computerworld.com/17034/and_you_thought_you_had_problem_users). Enjoy your t-shirt **drachillix**. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017/99 "2010-10-01T21:58:57Z")
I am IT legend! 🆒 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kinda-bullshit-we-deal-with-or-love-your-computer-tech/553017.md?page=4)