Reached My Threshold for Stupidity This Week

Three different situations gives rise to one stupid response in three different forms. (yes, stupidity comes in many forms, this latest one must be a mutated form for it seems to be a little more resistant to reason and the not-so-common common sense.)
-------
Situation number 1 : Wifi Mooching
The news article is too lengthy so the gist of it is as follows -

1. Teenage boy surfed the net using an unsecured network without authorization.
   
2. He was caught, brought to court, found guilty and sentenced.
   
3. He was sent to a boy's home for nine months, 80 hours of community service and banned from using the internet for 18 months.
   

It is my opinion that he is absolutely in the wrong for doing what he did, but it is a little sad to see him face such a harsh sentence because the powers that be want to make him a shining deterent for all to see. Here is my analysis -

1. He is just a kid alright, surely as savvy as kids are with computers these days, a lack of judgement on their part isn't unheard of for kids his age.
   
2. He logged on to the network of an unsecured router automatically, as it is the case for most computers these days, unless you set it otherwise in Windows (or some other operating system). He did not deliberately hack into any system to obtain entry.
   
3. When he was in the network, all he did and had wanted to do was check email and go on messenger. He did not hack into the person's PC or try to fish for personal information or attempted to do something malicious.
   

There is so much more I had wanted to say, but thank God I found like-minded, intelligent people who have come up with excellent rebuttals, so I will just reproduce their thoughts here.
-------

" I HAVE been watching with growing concern the prosecution of individuals for Wi-Fi theft. The premise of such a prosecution shows a lack of understanding of the underlying technology and the regulatory framework under which it was launched. Wi-Fi is a standard for data transmission over unlicensed radio spectrum. The rules governing this usage were set in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission. As the protocol and equipment gained popularity, demand forced other governments to allow the same usage. The key here is that the radio spectrum being used is unlicensed. Like citizens' band radio in the 1970s and 80s, anyone is allowed to transmit and receive on this spectrum. There are no guarantees of privacy or private property. Once Wi-Fi became widely available, people quickly realised that their data was at risk if they transmitted without some sort of encryption. Equipment manufacturers, not governments, responded by offering, first, Wireless Equivalency Privacy (WEP), then stronger forms of encryption when WEP was shown to be hackable. Wi-Fi transmitters are designed to broadcast their availability, and Wi-Fi receivers, to search for all available networks. Any laptop will automatically list all available networks that can be 'seen'. In my flat, I can see at least 12 networks, at least half of which are not encrypted. One analogy proposed tries to equate Wi-Fi mooching with physical entry into someone's house: 'Just because I leave my door unlocked, does not mean you are free to enter.' This analogy is inappropriate. Wi-Fi is designed to send a welcome message to anyone operating with Wi-Fi-compliant hardware. The proper analogy is 'You are welcome to come into my house unless the door is locked'. Silence, or inaction, on the part of the network owner is consent. The real culprit in this sad state of affairs is the person who attaches a Wi-Fi transmitter to his home wired network, and knowingly fails to turn on basic encryption. Such individuals are breaking the terms of their agreements with the Internet service providers which prevent further distribution or access by individuals other than the subscriber. It is time we stop ruining the lives of children by giving them inappropriate criminal records, and start going after the real problem, those who are too lazy to use equipment properly. "

- [Waleed Hanafi, " Stop criminalising the young over Wi-Fi 'theft', Straits Times Forum, 18 January 2007]
-------

Situation number 2: UK Celebrity Big Brother and Racism

If you heard the news on Tv or radio these few days, you would most probably have crossed report on the UK Celebrity Big Brother racism issue - directed toward Shilpa Shetty, an indian actress. This problem became so big, it was hotly debated in the British Parliment and in major news corporations worldwide, there was an uproar in India which caused a strain in British/India relationships which in turn caused the economy of Britian to dip a little due to loss in businesses and what have you. Just google it and you'll have a few dozen articles regarding this incident.

-------

What do I think of this? I think that all these people (those who make a mountain out of a molehill) are bloody idiots. Hey I'm against racism too but I do not deny that I'm sometimes a racist, deny it all you want, but I believe sometimes you are too, but we all strive to surpress that ugly side with discipline and decorum. That's life. However, that in itself is not my argument.

My argument is this: They are talking about a reality TV show here, and on top of that, it is Big Brother. Don't they realize that it is the very idea of clashing ideals/ opinions/ personalities/ sexual tension... that draw millions of viewers every week? That's what the whole bloody show is about! If you place 10 people in the house with sweet cupcake personalities, who are polite and agreeable on every account, who read Bible verses to each other as entertainment, who only whisper words of love and encouragement to each other, do you - in your right mind - think that this will be a popular show?

Of course the producers have to put a front on this racism issue, they would have to go on record and say 'NO' to racist remarks in their show, they would say that they have absolutely zero tolerance for housemates who behave in that unruly manner, but seriously who are they kidding? Proven once again, bad publicity is still publicity, ever since this issue blew up, their ratings reached stratospheric heights. So as the saying goes, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you cannot stand the show's antics then just bloody well boycott the show. Cancelling the show or chiding the contestents will do absolutely nothing, it is not like the housemates will have a sudden change of heart and be tolerant of all races. So why the fuss?

-------

Situation number 3 - American Idol 2007

As with all seasons, the judges will move from state to state auditioning for people with good voices, before filtering them down to the best amongst them. And as usual, there will be the weirdos, the jokers, those who are tone deaf, all of them firmly believing that they'll become the next American idol. That's alright because we all know they are just there to get their 2 minutes of fame. So for the show's ratings along with some good laughs, that's alright, it's just part of the program. HOWEVER...

There are contestants who truly truly believe they can be the next american idol but who also truly truly suck at singing. They are excruciatingly bad. Nails dragged across a chalk board kind of bad. So when asked why they believe they can make it to the next round despite their lack of talent... some replied that they were unique, some said they prayed (I cannot believe they dragged God in this) but the best answer ever was that they were nursing a hope.

Hope? What were they hoping for? Were they hoping for the millions of voting viewers of American Idol to be deaf? Oh boy oh boy oh boy... my hearts goes out to the judges who have to sit through the entire ordeal.