WiFi

[bocadillo]

But as a civil offence you can take legal action against someone - and presumably Melton could have done that if he'd wanted. Not that it would have done him any good.

Indeed. He could have sued for the trespass. But he would only have been able to sue for damages. What damages were there?

 

[Melton Fox]

Indeed. He could have sued for the trespass. But he would only have been able to sue for damages. What damages were there?

Diddleysquat, otherwise I could have had him for criminal damage in a court of law

 

[Macky]

Diddleysquat, otherwise I could have had him for criminal damage in a court of law

It's a good job he didn't use the same spoon for the sugar after just making a coffee for himself while he was in there, you would have strung him up from the nearest tree.

:icon_bigg

 

[Macky]

Unauthorised, intentional, access to wireless data is an offence under the act, especially if you are using that data to break encryption.

With regard to the open network that literally anyone can connect to, surely the same principle could be applied? If I can get access to it, and connect to it without encountering any obstacle then by extension I must be authorised to connect to it and use it.

Lastly much like the closed door scenario above if the entity providing the network wants to only have authorised users then they would need to implement a mechanism, a closed door.

I didn't mention an open network.

 

[Melton Fox]

It's a good job he didn't use the same spoon for the sugar after just making a coffee for himself while he was in there, you would have strung him up from the nearest tree.

:icon_bigg

Aye, and the bastard took a bottle of wine when the police took him away

 

[OldGit]

Only one way to settle this.

Rumpole v Kavanagh before John Deed

 

[SJN-Fox]

Unless there is a notice saying that only authorised persons persons may access the network, any access must surely be deemed authorised?

Not really, these are deemed as private networks and so should be considered as such. I am paying for the service, anyone who uses that service without my say so is unauthorised. They are helping themselves to MY bandwidth that I am paying for, moreover, they are using up any download/traffic limits that have been imposed on MY account, therefore their actions are illegal.

 

[M17TT C]

I should know all this really, part of my exam tomorrow is on the Computer Misuse Act!

 

[SJN-Fox]

Here you go, have a look at this

A man was last week fined £500 after a British jury found him guilty of using a neighbourhood wireless broadband connection without permission. Gregory Straszkiewicz, 24, was also sentenced to a 12 months conditional discharge after he was convicted of dishonestly obtaining an communications service and related offences at London's Islewoth Crown Court last Wednesday (20th July).


The case – brought under the Communications Act 2003 – is the first "war driving" prosecution in the UK, according to the police. Officers caught Straszkiewicz hunting for "free" net connections in a residential area after complaints from locals. Straszkiewicz deliberately set out to borrow bandwidth from his unwitting benefactors but there's no evidence he had any hostile motive beyond this – so his sentence seems harsh. It's unclear whether anyone who accidentally jumped onto another party's net connection (easy to do if a host is using an unsecured connection with no encryption) might also risk prosecution

 

[Joe_Fox]

I bet he had been warned before though.

 

[SJN-Fox]

I bet he had been warned before though.

Must've been. Neighbours probably thought he was a perv or kerb crawler or something.

 

[Joe_Fox]

Must've been. Neighbours probably thought he was a perv or kerb crawler or something.

Leave Durham out of this.

 

[SJN-Fox]

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: