Jim Sampson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> You mean Randy "the situational ethicist" Cohen.
> or Randy "the more people who use other people's wireless links the better
> for everyone" Cohen.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4604352
I listened to that. I do appreciate the concept that everyone needs to pay
for their fair share of the internet. That was entirely lost on the
interviewer, who didn't understand that there is a cost to the internet
beyond the DSL link that gets you to the internet.
Randy's attitude seems more like "no harm no foul" in using an unsecured
WAP, as long as he is paying someone for internet access. His version
ignores the cost of that first link to internet. That position doesn't fit
the definition of situational ethics as I understand it, which is a wrong
being "allowable" as a result of some other perceived wrong.
If everyone agreed that their WAP was public, life would be good. To say
that any public WAP is yours for the taking is not so good. I liken it to
taking a drink from a water hose in someone else's yard. Okay if everyone
thinks it's okay, but I don't think we have that concensus in WiFi.
I thought the interview was done by a poorly prepared interviewer,
receiving a poorly thought out response to a question from someone who
wanted to justify a free ride.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5