RE: [Netstumbler] Browse Networks

[David Vincent <david.vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The point being made by Mr Bond is that it the responsibility 
> of the owner to protect themselves. If they are open access 
> and breached it is more their fault than the 'assailants'. It 
> would be foolish to stand by an idealistic "wardrivers" ethic.
> 
> IMHO it should be stressed by the vendor to the buyer that 
> security should be enabled, and the implications of security 
> breach. Also, hacking tools available on the web could be 
> monitored and if necessary, their operations shut down.

it IS stressed by the vendors, I see these warnings everywhere.  monitoring
the hacking tools is copmletely unfeasible tho, you must admit.  

yes, the network owner, if they have any sort of clue, should restrict
access to their network.  but because it is open doesn't make it free or
public, and doesn't mean you can go walking there.

fields without fences are still private property.

unlocked doors do not mean you can just walk into any room you want.

unless you seek authorization, you are unauthorized!

-d