Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Roland Perry lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Thu Feb 16 21:42:18 GMT 2012

In article <8279E31C-D03C-412A-B16D-64E3181CF503 at batten.eu.org>, Ian 
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>> 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.
>But that's going to need to be put onto a legal footing.  Cars do have registered keepers, which may be distinct from owners, and that those
>registered keepers have responsibilities (for example, companies need to keep records of who is driving pool cars) stems from the requirement
>that cars be insured.  None of that's true for broadband connections, and even if you can construct some sort of "head of the household"
>concept for some domestic settings, it doesn't work for others, still less for businesses.

There's no need for a new concept: "Subscriber" has been OK for a decade 
at least, for sundry activities associated with telecoms facilities.
Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list