Demaestro - 3:33 pm on May 18, 2010 (gmt 0)
how many *consumers* you believe consciously understand that their wi-fi, unless actively secured, is interceptable by others. Guys like you and me know these things. But the average consumer doesn't.
It doesn't matter to me how many understand. I am over hand holding people who want to use technology but have no interest in taking a day or two to learn how to use it.
If you want to hook up a little box to your computer that broadcasts your info to the world and you have no idea how it works, what the implications are or even what is broadcasting then I have little sympathy for you.
To me it is like someone who buys a car and never puts oil in it, then when a cylinder goes through the engine block they get all defensive and say how no-one told them it needed oil, and how the dealer should pay for it.... Did you read the owners manual? Why not? We can't go through life hand holding people, if they want to do something they should take the time to learn how.
Having a large sign on your door with your name is fine. Reading that sign when you walk in a street is also OK, but creating a database with all the names of people linked to their address isn't.
You are saying information is good until such time that too many people acquire that information or until such time that the information is easily retrievable, then at that point the information becomes dangerous, or in your words... not ok.
So what is the bench mark? When 1000 people know the name of the people living in the house with their name on the front it becomes not ok? At what point does information become bad?
I just can't grasp the concept that the more available info becomes, that it somehow becomes bad.