Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
nbohm at ernest.net
Fri Feb 17 12:10:02 GMT 2012
On 16/02/2012 21:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4F3D2CF0.4020005 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm
> <nbohm at ernest.net> 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,
>> the burden of proof isn't on the keeper
>>> they'll try to nail the keeper.
>> For a non-criminal claim (e.g. negligence)? I rather doubt that. And
>> the (private individual) keeper's obligation is to provide what
>> information he has about who was driving. If three or four people are
>> insured to drive and the keeper says he cannot remember, and there's no
>> other evidence, I suspect that's the end of it. Or are there contrary
> I thought the keeper got the parking tickets these days, if he
> couldn't decide who was driving.
Not that I know of. But sooner or later, I suppose. However, as
administrative penalties, these lie somewhere between the criminal and
the civil, and don't seem a good analogical basis for changing the
general legal principle involved.
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
More information about the ukcrypto