OMG why do people persist in recycling this inane and ridiculous physical analogy? We've heard it about 600 times already, and it doesn't make any more sense the 601st time. A node on the network is not a place, any more than a telephone is a place. If one node sends a message to another node, the receiving node may respond in any fashion, including no response at all. It may be necessary to police this common interaction, but that necessity does not follow from the common human desire for security in one's home.
Analogies aren't mean to be perfect comparisons. That's why they're analogies.
The analogy works well enough, since we're dealing with private property (home, network) concealed by points of entry (doors, windows, nodes). Types of responses and feelings of security, etc are outside the scope of the analogy.
In what sense does a window or a node "conceal" anything? Perhaps you're thinking of curtains and adequately-implemented authentication? If I call a phone number, and the answering machine comes on and tells me some corporate secrets, would you still compare my nefarious conduct to the physical acts of physically entering someone else's home and depriving them of their physical goods?
By the way, it's disingenuous to introduce a scenario (of dubious relevance) that inspires strong feelings and then to deny you intended to evoke those feelings.
