[ale] [Fwd: Re: wireless at Starbucks]

[Geoffrey]

Robert Reese~ wrote:
>> Robert Reese~ wrote:
>>> I wrote:

>> Ah, define reasonable.  The car is a good analogy.  My car is more 
>> secure then my neighbors as mine is in my garage, his is not.
> 
> In this case it is reasonable that taking the keys out of the car
> means you don't want someone using it by the fact that there is a
> reason for the LOCK on the car's ignition which is to give the owner
> the opportunity to prevent someone else from using the vehicle.
> Enforcement of the barrier that lock presents by removing the key
> inherently says "do not drive me".  Forcibly bypassing the lock
> barrier again is, to the average person's definition of
> reasonableness, asserting one's will over the will of the owner.
> There's also a reason that some insurance companies won't cover
> vehicle theft if the key is left in it. ;c)  Reasonable reasoning,
> no?

Or, it could mean that "I didn't leave the keys in the car because on 
the same keyring is my house key and I need it to get into my house.

> As far as being in the garage versus outside, don't mistake that as
> more secure.  If your neighbor does not have his key in the vehicle
> and you do, then in both cases only a single barrier exists to
> prevent the unauthorized use of the vehicle (assuming your garage
> door is down and locked).

I subscribe to the 'Bob Toxen rule of rings of security.' :)  Car is in 
the garage, vehicle keys removed, vehicle is locked, garage door is down 
and a camera monitors my driveway. ;) (not to mention two 4-legged 
biological alarm systems roaming the backyard with clear view to the 
driveway.)

> BTW, here's an interesting recent event:
> in Roswell in the Martin's Landing subdivision, there was a string of
> vehicle thefts from garages.  It seems the folks out there were
> parking in their garages and leaving the garage door open.  While
> many did leave the keys in the vehicle's ignition, the thieves were
> discovered to be brazen enough to actually enter the home via the
> inside garage door, where most all of them led to the kitchen, and
> they simply grabbed the keys off the counter/table/keyhook, etc. and
> drove the vehicle out of the open garage.

Yeah, I lock the door that leads from the garage to the house as well.

>>> To extend that to your analogy, let's say you don't leave your 
>>> keys in the car, and someone uses their _own_ key in your car 
>>> (there are only about 50 different key cuts needed for each 
>>> door/ignition keyway).  You've take prudent and reasonable action
>>>  to prevent the use of your vehicle.  c)
>>> 
>> Have you ever seen the show 'bait car?'  Pretty much the same 
>> thing, only the engine isn't running and the doors are closed, but 
>> the keys are there and the doors are not locked.  Take the car and 
>> you're going to jail.
> 
> Nope, I missed it.  But keep in mind that there is a law prohibiting
> taking the vehicle.  There is no such law where the internet is
> concerned, at least not here in Georgia.  OTOH, I'd also argue that
> the law is unnecessary.  If someone is dumb enough to leave their
> keys in their car and the doors unlocked, it serves them right.
> People really shouldn't have a right to be rewarded for or defended
> against their own stupidity.

If that was the case, there'd be a whole lot of laws removed from the 
books and attorneys would be out of business.  Coffee and McDonalds?

> 
>> Just the same, I have printed to a shared printer on one of my 
>> neighbors networks, as a joke.  The output said: "your network is 
>> not secure, call me if you'd like me to help you with that, you 
>> neighbor Geof."  Of course, we were on friendly terms, so he got a 
>> kick out of it.  His wife, on the other hand, didn't find it 
>> humorous at all. ;)
> 
> Ha!  I'll bet she was wanting to make sure the network was secure
> after that.  I hadn't even thought to look for a shared printer, and
> then I probably wouldn't have thought to send them a message in such
> a manner.  That's a good idea on retrospect, and definitely worth
> pursuing in the future; at least I'll get to see the look on their
> face. ;c)

Yeah, and it was really fun when he came to discuss the issue with me. ;)

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin