"Sometimes that's a sign that your point of view is out of whack." Same goes for you, of course ; ) Unfortunately, regardless of who is ethically right or wro

"Sometimes that's a sign that your point of view is out of whack." Same goes for you, of course ; ) Unfortunately, regardless of who is ethically right or wrong, my view will retain the upper hand, for the simple fact that the network is global, and whatever laws you pass in any country will not, nor ever, apply to all. For this simple reason you must continue to consider security the sole responsible of the proprietor, and assume the complete legal immunity of the customer/attacker (same thing). "If someone concocted a scheme to walk out the front door with all of the free samples" I do not particularly care for the idea of the judiciary being involved in rationing out Whole Foods' free samples. I do see your point - theft is theft, after all - but do you really want to make an obvious prank illegal? Outright shoplifting is one thing. Pranks are another, and they were free samples. You're so enthusiastic to consider intent in your other examples, why forget all about it in this one?