Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 17 09:03:35 GMT 2012
So the OAP will be held liable whether or not he/she has secured the WiFi?
Was the original US case about the illegal download or the negligence of the
"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4.
and don't forget patients like Fred!
From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists at internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: 16 February 2012 21:42
To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
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
There's no need for a new concept: "Subscriber" has been OK for a decade
at least, for sundry activities associated with telecoms facilities.
More information about the ukcrypto