Unless you ask the network owner if he minds having others on his network, how can you know for certain? How can you arbitrarily assume whether or not they'll object?
Think about it: Does an open door to a house mean the homeowner won't mind if I step inside to cool off from the hot sun, even though I don't take anything from the house? Why would my physical intrusion be any different from a virtual one?
I can put it to you another way: Would it be less wrong of me to snatch up a busted iPod that the owner had no intention of repairing or using and would not notice or care if it disappeared? After all, it's useless to him, he has a replacement, no harm, no foul, right?
It's really not that complicated. Stealing is stealing, whether the emotional/financial impact is felt or not. There are no varying degrees for it and it cannot be negated as a vice on the assumption that the owner won't face an emotional or financial impact over it's disappearance.
I could be mistaken, this could be a stretch, but the vibe I'm getting from the responses is that stealing is wrong only if it negatively affects the victim.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.
-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator
Last edited by QuasiMondo; 09-06-2007 at 08:19 AM..
|