Safe Speed Forums

They may not have been convicted of theft, but they certainly would have been convicted of dishonestly obtaining communication services.

Now, if they had been honest enough to ASK the person whose system (that he paid for, not them) they utilised, that would have been different.

But not being honest, and being part of the "if I can get it free, I don't care who pays" element of society, they didn't ask.

Rather similar to someone wandering through your open front door and nicking the family silver.

Oh, and they could, in theory, have got five years.....

Just read the wiki link - i stand corrected - I wasn't aware such a law existed.

I don't think the analagy of walking into a family home because the door was open and stealing the family silver stands true in the case of un-protected wireless networks because:

1)The wireless signal is being broadcast into the vicinity/home/car of the individual who intercepts it; he/she does not have to enter a premesis to 'steal' it. Indeed the individual may not wan radiowaves forced into his/her living space.

2)Nothing has been stolen provided the contract is based on unlimited usage.

3)The broadcaster has does nothing to protect it and is therefore negligent and or consenting to the use by others.

For those of you in Kendal for a day, there is an unsecured hotspot round the back of the Police Station, near their car park - Ian H could well benefit from this!

I dont think it is anything to do with the police, just a careless neighbour!
However I'm puzzled as to just where it originates!

My neighbouring unsecured network at work has now been secured - still not sure who it is!

Not sure if it still the case, but one University Student Union branch used to issue a bulletin of local hotspots with no security!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

It makes no difference, the law exists to stop it. As for the unlimited use....so...the contract is free ?.
As I said, as the law stands they were committing an offence. Rather like receiving broadcast television without a licence.
The wifi was not set-up for them to use, their use was an offence. One suspects that they knew it as well, hence the hasty acceptance of the charge. The broadcaster does not need to protect it, its use without his/her consent was/is an offence.
You can split as many hairs as you like, you can go-on about "nothing was stolen" for ever and a day. The offence was DISHONESTLY OBTAINING COMMUNICATION SERVICES, which they WERE doing !
They did it without consent, without knowledge and by sneaking around in cars at night to find and use the systems. In fact, one even had the windows covered with cardboard to hide the light of the display...

I don't think that applies, since the householder is not making a charge. And the ISP isn't being defrauded because they are being paid what they are asking.

(Of course, computer misuse offences do apply, so it's a bit of a moot point.)

the law stands true of course, but my analogy does also...

Not really like receiving TV without a licence, given that you don't need a licence to receive WiFi transmissions. I'd say it was more like having your own garden watered for free because your neighbour had set their sprinkler up too close to the fence between your properties.

_________________
Chris

Brilliant analogy

However the law is there and just owning such a device puts millions of people in a position where they could be accused.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

A bit cheeky this but it is still in the Wi Fi topic.
I have a pocket pc and have spent ages getting the Outlook mail service to work on it and have just managed to send and receive but will this work on any Wi Fi connection or is it restricted to my own connection?

Assuming it's a standard POP3/SMTP arrangement (ie, what you would get from any ISP) as opposed to something like MS Exchange like you may get in a corporate environment then you will have no problems receiving, you may have problems sending.

You are sending through a server provided by your ISP, in order to prevent spam, many ISPs block the ability to use their server to send to anyone except their own users, when you are on someone else's wireless connection, you just appear to be some random stranger from the internet.

Some ISPs will provide a way for you to authenticate for sending when sending from outside their network, but only they can advise if they provide this facility and how you go about setting it up.

This is just blatant scare-mongering. If anyone wants to "enter" an illegal porn site they can do so without being traced and without going to the hassle of driving around looking for unsecured networks.

What bothers me is the guy was apparently arrested for using a laptop in his car. Better watch out Paul seems you are a criminal

Thanks Lum.
Actually if the truth be known the question was aimed at you

if you desperatly needed to send a e-mail you could send it via web mail and copy it to your self so you had a copy in outlook...

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

It would seem to be an absolute offence, it doesn't need a complaint. Just obtaining the services would be the offence.
And there are many instances in the US of peoples WiFi system being used to send spam. Try telling your ISP it wasn't you when they've cut-off your service for spamming (and yes, it has happened to ME....but not on my wireless router)
In any case, since you now know that it is an offence you'll be able to stop doing it....oopps sorry, minor social problem: It's only illegal if you get caught.

Lock up every laptop and PDA salesman!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Perhaps not, the bit immediately beyond where you snipped says that the supplier has to know or believe that the device will be used in contravention of (1):
So, it's all about intention and just because your laptop or PDA has latched onto an unsecured access point doesn't mean you've broken the law. There are a lot of deliberately open access points which mean that anyone who intends to access one of these points but ends up connecting through someone's domestic router would not be guilty. The same sort of thing means that it should soon be impossible to convict for this offence in Manchester because they're planning a free WiFi network.

_________________
Will

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I know hacking into people's computers or networks is an offence; I was merely questioning the appropriateness of a charge of "avoiding payment" when the householder was not asking for payment.

And I have my own wireless network thanks very much, so I don't know why you are making implied accusations.