Why does this group have so much spam?
steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au
Wed Sep 2 09:35:58 CEST 2009
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> I have read more that one person advocating leaving one's wi-fi base
>>> open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly' thing to do.
>> That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
>> paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down
>> the street with a laptop and wi-fi).
> Unless the 'neighbor' is your friendly local spam or malware merchant
Since they're sending spam through your account, it's the same as you
sending the spam, and you're responsible for it.
> The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open
> and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual
> evidence on the hard drives of on-premises machines, then one may claim
> that it must have been someone else. On the other hand, if the router is
> properly closed, then it will be hard to argue that someone hacked
> trough it.
> There are, of course, flaws in this argument, and I take it as evidence
> of intention to conduct illegal activity, whether properly so or not.
So, if somebody leaves their car unlocked, is that evidence that they
were intending to rob a bank and wanted a fast getaway car?
If you leave your window open on a hot summer's night, is that evidence
that you're planning to fake a burglary?
If you leave your knife and fork unattended in a restaurant while you go
to the toilet, is that evidence that you intended to stab the waiter and
blame somebody else?
I assume you would answer No to each of these. So why the harsher
standard when it comes to computer crime?
More information about the Python-list