Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Andrew Cormack Andrew.Cormack at ja.net
Thu Feb 16 13:37:29 GMT 2012

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ian Batten
> Sent: 16 February 2012 08:39
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence


> But once there are
> measures in place that make it clear an invitation is not being
> extended, even if those measures are defeatable, then I think that
> argument evaporates.

I did spot an SSID recently that made it *very* clear (in words of four and three letters) that an invitation was *not* being extended. However I doubt that'll make it into any ISP's default access point setting any time soon ;-)

Lord Errol put the case of the confused access point owner rather well during the DEA debate in the Lords, IIRC


Andrew Cormack
Chief Regulatory Adviser
Direct line: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Janet, the UK's education and research network

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list