Why does this group have so much spam?

[Steven D'Aprano]

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?



-- 
Steven