Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Thu Feb 16 15:07:09 GMT 2012
In article <4F3D00FA.9020109 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm
<nbohm at ernest.net> writes
>>> E.g. if you leave a ladder in your garden and a burglar uses it to
>>> burgle your neighbour, you are not in breach of any duty of care because
>>> you failed to secure the ladder.
>>> The same applies to Wi-Fi routers.
>> To continue the analogy, one problem is that your fingerprints will be
>> all over both the ladder and the communications from your wi-fi router.
>> We are still at the early stages of forensic analysis of
>> communications, and there is still a tendency to think that the wi-fi
>> owner is guilty (of whatever infraction has his fingerprints on it)
>> until proved innocent.
>I'm sure you're right.
>And of course it's perfectly reasonable to interview the owner of the
>ladder or the router to ask whether he was the burglar or the
>downloader, or can provide information that might identify the culprit.
>But that implies no more than that he might be a useful witness if he
>doesn't admit to being the guilty party.
But wifi routers seem to be in the same mental camp as motor cars, and
if you can't prove someone else was driving at the time, they'll try to
nail the keeper.
More information about the ukcrypto