Which is why many companies now put the diclaimers message before login regarding authourised use.

 

If you are on restricted usage then it does leave you with nothing. You paid for for example 2 gigs download and they stole for example 1 gig. You now do not have access to what you paid for. This is no different to buying 2 cars and them helping themselves to one. You are still left with one car so should you be happy.

 

Nope the analogy still doesnt work, you cant compare the two.

A physical car is not the same as a data allowence no matter how you phrase it.

You steal a car as you say, the police can locate it and return it back to you. Can the police locate your stolen 1gig and return that safely to you?

 

so its not theft if the police cant return something

So if I come round your house, steal and eat all your food, the police cant return that so its not theft. And in the same light someone steals a document you write and copyrights it is that not theft. Also in most cases the police cant return the stolen car so I am afraid your arguement is flawed too.

 

This thread has gone very silly

It's clearly not acceptable for someone to use someone else's wireles lan. However, I personally believe there is some onus on the owner to secure it.

Yes if someone steals your car because you left the keys in it it is still theft, but you are a plonker for doing it

And, it is quite possible, as I have found out, for someone non-technical to use someone else's connection without realising it.

Fortunately as more and more WAPs are released with security ON by default, this will reduce as an issue, although legacy kit will remain for a long time.

 

Im not saying its not theft, I just said your analogy doesnt work.

Eat my food, yes its theft
Steal my IP, yes its theft
Steal my bandwidth, yes its theft
steal my car, yes its theft

Im going back to NSR