Why think in either-or terms? It's not either-or, but my question here concerns the societal attitudes toward theft and their effect on its prevalence, not the

Why think in either-or terms? It's not either-or, but my question here concerns the societal attitudes toward theft and their effect on its prevalence, not the practicalities of reducing the risk of theft. But imagine leaving a car unlocked and ready to go. How would you feel about the situation then? I'd feel exactly the same. There are still many parts of the US where cars are regularly left unlocked, often enough with the key in the ignition if it's somewhere considered safe like a private driveway. Where I grew up in rural Wisconsin (northern USA) the joke was that you only needed to lock your car in the late autumn, because if you didn't someone might fill it with unwanted zucchini. Inspired by this joke, I filled several teachers' cars with squash after the first frost. In these same areas, it's also the case that many houses are rarely if ever locked. I don't think I've ever saw a key for the house I grew up in, and I'm certain I never had one for myself. In the same way that coins in a blind man's cup are not considered OK to steal just because he is not able to defend himself well, having an unlocked house or car is not considered to be granting permission to thieves. Transgression is viewed very negatively even if the level of difficulty is low. Tying this back to hacking, In 1990, Harper's Magazine published a seminal roundtable article titled "Is Computer Hacking a Crime?" (http://www.textfiles.com/news/hackers.txt http://www.textfiles.com/news/hackers.txt). In it, John Perry Barlow makes this comment: "BARLOW [Day 2. 10:41 P.M.]: I live in a small town. I don't have a key to my house. Am I asking for it? I think not. Among the juvenile delinquents in my town, there does exist a vandal's ethic. I know because I once was one. In a real community, part of a kid's rite of passage is discovering what walls can be breached. Driving 110 miles per hour on Main Street is a common symptom of rural adolescence, publicly denounced but privately understood. Many teenagers die in this quest-two just the night before last-but it is basic to our culture. Even rebellious kids understand that risk to one's safety is one thing, wanton vandalism or theft is another. As a result, almost no one locks anything here. In fact, a security system is an affront to a teenage psyche. While a kid might be dissuaded by conscience, he will regard a barricade as an insult and a challenge." My point isn't that there is one right approach, but that there is an interplay between attitudes and actions. Is it possible for cars and houses to be left unlocked just because it is currently a low-crime area, or might the fact that cars and houses are unlocked --- combined with a lack of tolerance for crime --- help to keep these as low-crime areas where such an approach is possible?