MD Bill Would Criminalize Theft of Wireless Access 764
Pickens writes "A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection. The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'"
abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we pay for the internet, but if you don't secure your network, and the pedestrian use doesn't impair your surfing experience... no harm, no foul. At least, thats what I think - but I'm still not running the world *sigh*
Stupid rednecks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)
i agree with the public defender (Score:5, Insightful)
"Purposely" is the key (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoever tagged this humor... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is outrageous.
Xohm? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.xohm.com/ [xohm.com]
Cheers!
Re:Stupid rednecks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:3, Insightful)
Proportional punishment to the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone but government officials and their lackeys (Score:4, Insightful)
And it is also okay if a private company did something like this if government directed, too, right?
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminalizing benefits big Telco's (Score:4, Insightful)
This benefits the very people who are demanding retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying.
I'm glad someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.
Re:Stupid rednecks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what about my network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask for permission (DHCP Request) and the equipment says (to paraphrase) "absolutley, come on 0:0c:fa:a8:gc:bb hear is where I keep the gateway to the internet, I will make sure to send you data that comes for you, and direct any data you send to the correct place.", than absolutely the have permission.
If you have to monkey around setting up static addressing, or finding keys or what not, than it enters a gray area.
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid rednecks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure that it isn't? Ask yourself, why did the Maryland government feel a need to address this issue at all? Because they had been flooded by emails from constituents who were furious over their stolen bandwidth? Or because telcos/cablecos/ISPs realized how easy wireless makes it to share a connection with your neighbor? I can't say for sure either way, but I know which of the two groups has more pull with most politicians.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me the guy doesn't make many good decisions. From his Wikipedia page:
# voted against the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007 (HB359)
# voted against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in 2007 (HB6)
# voted against the Healthy Air Act in 2006 (SB154)
If the guy doesn't want you to breath clean air, or teach illegal immigrants (after all, being literate obviously wouldn't help them at all..), then this seems pretty much par for the course.
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
If the guy doesn't want you to breath clean air, or teach illegal immigrants (after all, being literate obviously wouldn't help them at all..), then this seems pretty much par for the course.
Re:Unsecured networks get connected to by default (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like DHCP?
Look, it's really simple. If you don't want other people using your wireless network, don't disable the encryption. Notice I said "don't disable". Most access points these days are shipping with encryption on by default, so the trend is moving towards the point where we'll be able to automatically assume that every unencrypted point was intentionally set that way. In ten years, the proposed law will be completely unnecessary and will just be a broken relic of days gone by.
Laws like this annoy the heck out of me, as they are caused by technological neanderthals trying to come up with ways to appear that they are doing something useful, all while creating a body of unnecessary laws that bog down the legal system. In any case, I can say right now that I won't be traveling to Maryland if this happens. Life's too short to put up with getting arrested for sitting in your car outside a hotel checking your email for a couple of minutes. The law is a blatant abuse of power, and ultimately, the FCC needs to put a stop to this by creating policy that trumps it. Unencrypted Wi-Fi should be considered free for public use, period, at least until the owner explicitly asks you to stop.
The story from MI is far scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
A Fox News story says the man parked his truck in front of the shop during lunch breaks and checked his e-mail on his laptop computer.
When a nearby business owner got suspicious, police talked to the man and ruled out that he was spying or stalking someone. However, a prosecutor filed the charge of stealing the wireless connection, the story says.
The charge was a felony punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
His other choice was a jail diversion program, which involved paying a $400 fine, doing 40 hours of community service and being on probation for six months.
Combining idiotic laws with the proliferation of access points, how can I prove that I'm using the (paid for) T-mobile access point at the Starbucks and not the business next door? The guy in the article may have admitted using the coffee shops inet access, but that doesn't show that there's not a bigger problem with laws like this.
Before my laptop self destructed (heat issue), I had a Verizon phone card that I used all the time. In fact a few times when on-call, I would pull in to the nearest parking lot and do what I needed to do.
If I had chosen to park in the parking lot near a coffee shop like this and the owner called the cops, how can I prove that I was using my own internet connection and not hijacking his? The few people who saw my Verizon card assumed it was a wifi card and had to be explained in depth how this wasn't wifi and would generally operate anywhere you could get a cell phone signal. I can only imagine explaining this to a cop.
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why cannot I use services, which you make freely available to me?
If I use my computer in a coffee shop, every time I turn it on, I should make sure
I don't accidentally connect to your wireless router?
how to enforce this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what about my network? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Locked Door Test (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if the door is open, it's reasonable to expect that perhaps the general public was invited in.
If the door is closed, but not locked, it's still possible that the general public is invited in, they're just trying to keep the heat in or the flies out.
If the door is closed and locked, clearly the general public is not invited in.
As for the "default router settings are open" argument, that's kind of like saying "newly installed doors are unlocked." As for the "flashing 12:00:00" argument, if you aren't competent to lock your front door, there's a problem. Manufacturers of wireless equipment need to do a better job of explaining this. They need a BIG RED PAGE when you open the box, explaining how to do the basic security, and how if you don't, you could have legal problems because you're responsible for ALL access through that wireless connection. As far as I can see, the directions are very little past, "insert the Windows driver disk."
By the way, so the instructions tell you as a minimum key to use your name, address, and phone number, and the street address for the SSID. Ain't much of a lock, is it? But it's is still most definitely a lock, and it takes deliberate action to open. No default-configured computer from anywhere will automatically crack even a trivial key and automatically make a connection.
Everyone with an iPhone would be a criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the owner of that router might say, "But I didn't know it was doing that on my behalf!" I suppose it's a little like coming home to find that your kid has been inviting people into your house who you'd rather not have there. But that's an issue to be settled between you and your errant kid, isn't it? Law enforcement generally isn't interested.
Since there is no groundswell of outrage from people who are providing bandwidth to their neighbors - unwittingly or not - you have to assume that the "victims" here are the ISPs: Comcast, Time-Warner and the like. That guy who checks his email or the weather using "free" wireless is, in their eyes, $50 a month in lost revenue. Not that they could possibly influence legislators in a state like Maryland, of course...
My wireless is free to anyone... is that illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, how will the end users know which networks are free to use, and which are ignorant people who can't configure technology (that they should know how to configure if they're going to try to use it)?
This sounds more like large ISP's paying someone kickbacks to the people in charge to prevent people from using 'free' internet, than it does protecting the children.
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:abra-ca-de-ridiculous! (Score:3, Insightful)
THEFT of Wireless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
Legally speaking, your kid is not allowed to invite anyone into your home. After all, your child doesn't own your house, does he?
Just because there is no outrage doesn't mean there aren't people that would be upset if they knew someone was using their network. If I leave my house unlocked, and people are entering it without my knowledge, I would be pretty upset to find out that someone did in fact enter my house. Especially if it was through a back door I didn't even know existed.
Why don't we do this as a society? Don't use anything which belongs to someone else without their permission? Sure would make the world a bit nicer.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:5, Insightful)
While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
and infringing use of an open network service?
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
This is like putting an "Open" sign on the front of your business, and then calling the police when people come in.
If anybody should be punished, it's the people making software and hardware that's automatically wide open.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Ok. So, the government can't save you, but the government's public education campaign can?
Accidental? (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
I partially agree with your statement, that it should be the responsibility of the wireless AP manufacturers to enable some security by default, even if it is only WEP. You should make the user have to disable WEP, if they want an open network.
The manufacturer's argument to that, would be that the common user probably does not know how to use WEP. This would therefore cause an increase in support calls when their new wireless router does not work. The manufacturer should have to deal with that, or make it extremely simple and obvious to the user how to use the security features.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose you encounter a vending machine selling snacks for 10 cents. That's a bargain, but the sign on the machine says "Only 10 cents!" and when you insert your dime, out pops a package of twinkies. A little while later the SWAT squad shows up in full armor, because the owner of the vending machine actually intended the price to be $1, but because he's not a technophile he didn't know how to change the price on the old machines he bought and maybe didn't even realize that he had to. You have twinkie cream all over your chin, so you're busted. How much prison time are you OK with?
You'll get off, though, because the vending maching - "sentient" or not - was acting as the authorized agent of its owner, and he is liable for the cost of failing to operate it properly. If there's a difference between a case like this and the unencrypted router, it's that the vending machine guy is actually out tangible goods, but in most cases the owner of the router suffers no real loss.
Stupid question time (Score:2, Insightful)
Asswad from Mexshitco comes up. Has a bunch of kids (free on the public dime by giving a false name or just not paying the hospital). Enrolls their kids in every free-public-money scam thanks to the Democraps, uses up MY tax money. Has his kids sitting around shitting up the school system to the point where all the non-spanish-speaking teachers are run off and my kids have to wait for the brainless shitheads to catch up before anything else can be taught, or else I wind up spending MORE of my money to send my kids to a decent school because his kids have fucked over the school but good.
Now we hit college time. His kids are supposed to get all sorts of "minority scholarships" for "underpriviledged minorities", and they're talking about giving his kids in-state tuition????
WTF IS GOING ON HERE.
No, seriously. Enough is enough. I've run the numbers and no longer want the mooching illegals around ruining the schools, ruining the health care and emergency rooms, running up the costs in insurance (I have to pay an extra %1000/year for uninsured/underinsured coverage thanks to all the mexshitcans around here), and all the rest of the trouble they cause. Enough is enough.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I shied away from using children as an example is that they often maintain a different relationship in law with regard to trespassing than do adults.
(I am also unable to find any case-law dealing with invitations issued by individuals who have no authority to do so, and in any case, this case is not really comparable to trespassing for a variety of reasons.)
However, the issue basically, in my mind, breaks down to this: Your computer/router/child has no authority, on its own, to issue or deny an invitation for entry or use of your systems, space, etc, etc.
The question then becomes, do you have a duty to take action to prevent people, or warn them off, from using or entering your systems/space, etc.
I do not believe there is; property is generally accepted as being inviolate, with a handful of exceptions, unless a reasonably explicit invitation is issued to the contrary by a legitimate issuing authority.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not trespassing.
What if I want people to be able access my network? Should I give them double secret permission?
As the ISPs are the only ones (potentially) harmed by a random person checking their email or surfing the web on an open wireless network, and this bill is clearly designed to protect them from perceived loss of revenue, perhaps the bill should create civil or criminal penalties for violating an ISP's terms of service. This would place the burden on people running open networks, which is, IMHO, still ridiculous and stupid, but it would more accurately address the "problem".
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
Your router's job is such in a technical sense, not a legal one.
Laws and court decisions already exist to deal with this, and it's not the same thing, although some of it breaks down to commercial and contract law which is not really relevant to wireless routers.
However a lot of it breaks down to intent, due diligence, and negligence, as well as public perception on the parts of both the (shall we say) vendor and purchaser.
I would argue that there is a great deal more due diligence that applies to the owner of a vending machine. Why?
There are a variety of reasons.
Firstly, a vending machine is in plain sight. if the vending machine owner knew it was selling things for 10 cents when that was not his intent, he had an obligation to alter that state of affairs, and knowing it should be set that way is his responsibility as it is in plain sight. (To head off the argument: if it was installed by a representative of his, his beef and legal debate is with the representative, not the purchaser, and he has a valid argument there).
Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.
Would a reasonable person conclude that the owner or operator of the router configured it to allow entry? Merely claiming that it was technologically doing so is not relevant, as that is the default state.
open routers authorize (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
adding any CRIMINAL or CIVIL law for someone connecting to your UNENCRYPTED access point only encourages stupidity, lack of reponsibility and negligence. If you left a hose running plugged into your house that extended to the driveway, and i was running by and was thirsty, I'd pick it up turn on the spiggot and drink some... if you dont want me to then do one of three things: turn the damn thing off at the end of your house; put the hose away; or waste money on some crazy lock on it lol. Suggesting that the government take on the problem is an exercise in futility; it will only waste our time and money and rights.
Furthermore suggesting that the "makers of the devices" do anything differently has a similar net result. It is not their problem; it is yours. Do with it what you want. If you are too unintelligent to push the "EZ Security" (re crappy unadjustable settings" button on a linksys; or follow the extremely basic guide in the instructions, and are also too unintelligent to either ask a friend for help, call tech support, or find help elsewhere then you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of reasons you probably dont want wep or name your security method enabled by default; namely setting the damn thing up. What do you do when your device is having a problem or you forget the password?
There are other interesting a better ways to go about the problem. MAC address filtering can work well, as can limiting the number of leases allowed.
The bottom line is that this is an area that the government has absolutely no business talking about, getting involved with, or passing laws regarding. Especially the federal government. They've got plenty of important things to waste their time on that ACTUALLY matter and should be decided by them. Lastly, how is being fined or sent to jail even remotely not get categorized as excessive punishment worse than the crime? If you pay anything at most it should be some factor of the cost of the fee for internet service paid by the place you stole it from.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:5, Insightful)
I will never, EVER understand how the following counts as "stealing wireless access":
1) I broadcast my SSID. (Here's a wireless connection world! LOOK OVER HERE FOR IT!!!)
2) User asks, "Can I connect?" (IP address requested.)
3) I say, "Sure you can connect." (IP address loaned.)
4) YOU STEAL MY WIRELESS!!!!!!!
Ok, I guess I should do it as a car analogy:
1) I put out a sign, "I will let you borrow my car."
2) You ask, "Can I borrow your car?"
3) I say, "Yes, and here are the keys."
4) YOU STOLE MY CAR!!!!!
There is no difference. If you think there is a difference, you are either stupid or ignorant, or trying to apologize for someone else who is either stupid or ignorant.
If someone hacked into my wireless and used it, that's a crime. If someone stole my car, that's a crime. If someone asked to borrow my wireless and I let them, or my car and I let them, that's not a crime. If I'm either so socially ignorant or technically ignorant that I don't understand what I'm doing, then I need to suck it up when people do what I am INVITING them to do. And the rest of society should backhand me for complaining about it.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
Re:With the SSID (Score:3, Insightful)
The open AP = permission is not a lie, it's the entire design and purpose of the device. There is no ambiguity.
Another question: if you assume that an open AP does not imply permission, what do you do when you want to connect to web servers? Gateways? Tor? P2P? You're basically destroying everything that makes the internet tick, which is that intelligence is on the edges.
Perhaps a better approach would be to force all routers to be delivered with a dead wireless connection, and where you have to connect to it via cable to set up its wireless configuration. I'm sure that wouldn't go over well with the router manufacturers.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
Your logic seems odd given it is in plain sight. When the user goes to connect to his AP and he did not have to authenticate, this is very much a "plain sight" issue. Furthermore, some computers will simply use the nearest, open AP, which means it will automatically connect. If the owner did not have to authenticate then it is a very safe and reasonable assumption that no other user is require to authenticate either.
In the eyes of criminal law, ignorance is not a defense. And yet, that's basically where your whole argument falls. Furthermore, reasonable measures are often assumed. Is it reasonable someone who operates a gun knows how to handle it and assume the associated risk? Yes, therefore you assume the risk (and no if you are a toddler, mentally challenged). The same goes for RF equipment and this is widely upheld by the FCC. If you operate equipment which interferes, then YOU are responsible, regardless of what your education or level of experience dictates. This is no different. If you operate an AP, YOU are responsible for proper operation.
I'm sorry, but you may not like this position, but it is reasonable to assume given the same standards apply in both criminal law and federal regulation. Unless you can successfully argue somehow AP's don't use RF or that somehow it requires special legal exception, I can in no way, shape, or form, see your position as legitimate.
Re:Got it all wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
There's your first problem. They should NOT be in the state anyway. And as for evidence, do a quick search. There are umpteen studies on the matter and government officials (like the ones in Texas) have even been caught trying to doctor data.
Start here [fairus.org] and move forward.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, no doubt. Just yesterday, in fact, I unplugged my router for a sec to let it reboot and forgotten to plug it back in. I started my laptop (in the other room), started using the internet, and *boom!* there I was, "maliciously stealing" somebody else's wireless bandwidth because my computer automatically connected to their unsecured router!
OK, so I didn't read TFA. So I'm probably completely off base here. I mean, I get the idea behind the law - internet access is like any other consumable utility (gas, water, electric). But to contrast how different this is from that, when's the last time you turned on the shower and accidentally stolen water from your neighbor's water pipes?
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:3, Insightful)
The SSID IS the "sign" of the network. The only sign on a wireless network that has any chance of working can be a wireless signal on the network itself.
The only solution is to get the router configured properly. For consumer devices, maybe a BIG, RED Private/Public flip switch on the side of the box, that only allows non-secured access when it's on the "Public" setting.
Re:come here, sweetheart (Score:2, Insightful)
If you get free internet from a neighbor, it is you moral duty to share the cost with the neighbor. Of course, none of these pirates ever ask permission since they know the answer will be "no" most of the time.
Re:I don't like that word "purposely" in there... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you are fifty miles away from home in your car with your laptop, and you connect to some wireless network without having anyone's permission, then we can assume that you intentionally accessed someone else's laptop without permission.
Re:Got it all wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
And fairus.org is the only objective source without an ax to grind, right?
Anyway, let's take their supposed cost of $725 per Texas household. The fact is that illegal aliens usually can't and don't (propaganda to the contrary) sponge off of welfare, because they don't have SS numbers. (Maybe their children do, if born in the US, but then they aren't illegal aliens anymore but citizens like you and me.) So, they have to work, and most of them work for peanuts at hard, dirty, disgusting, mind-numbing jobs no one else wants. And they only get paid for what they actually produce, since no one will keep them around when things are slow. The result is that you indirectly benefit by having to pay less for things, compared to what you might have to pay if all these things were done, say, by union labor. I know that's hard to measure, since it's an underground economy, but let's pick a "practical" example you can relate to directly: an illegal immigrant housekeeper might cost you half or even a fourth of what you'd pay otherwise. That alone can save you far more than $750 per year.
Finally, note that almost all of this $750 goes to pay for K-12 schooling for their kids - far more than health or welfare or incarceration. (And it's no more than goes to pay for your kids in public school, or the kids of legal citizens on the dole for that matter.) But I guess your kids are better than they are, not that they had a choice in the matter, being kids. I suppose you'd prefer their kids stay illiterate, so they can continue to provide cheap labor? Oh, the kids probably are U.S. citizens, since they were born here, so they will be able get onto the welfare rolls, which is much more likely if they are illiterate and unskilled.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid question time (Score:2, Insightful)
You could have sent your kids to a state school. No one forced you to send your kids to another state. If that other state school system is so much better, you could perhaps move? There's scholastic scholarships, scholarships from companies, plenty of other places to get money for school; "Minority based" scholarships are only one type of funding. You or your children could take out loans for a college education (something an illegal resident cannot do.)
I pay my taxes, and pay for heath care as well. The only other option for these people is to give birth in places other than hospitals. You'd rather have a higher infant mortality rate? Why does being a legal resident have any bearing on why a person should have a better or worse chance to survive?
It's very unbecoming to generalize an entire population. Some of the smartest people in the world never spoke a lick of English. Did you know that the United States has no national language? I don't need to remind you that everyone in this country (save the Native Americans) are all immigrants. Getting an education and making it in this country is the "American Dream." Once again, why does it matter where a person comes from? The only alternative to a free education for everyone is to completely privatize, where everyone would have to pay tuition for all grades. You should feel honored and privileged to have the money to send your kids to a private school, not many people can.
It's not simply illegal residents that get health care for free at hospitals, it's homeless, people who simply cannot afford health care, and children said people. I don't have the statistics, but there's plenty of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck, a little bad luck and one could find themselves without a house. So the next time you think of how much money you're wasting on these people, just think you could be one of them.
So next time you're doing your taxes, be thankful that you can afford to pay for these necessities, and pay for those that may not be so fortunate.
Re:Stupid question time (Score:4, Insightful)