Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Richard Hopkins richard.hopkins at bristol.ac.uk
Fri Feb 17 14:53:13 GMT 2012

--On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:35 PM +0000 Roland Perry 
<lists at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In article <E1RxGmC-00086v-MS at chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos
> <theom+news at chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>>> "A federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts could test the question of
>>> whether individuals who leave their wireless networks unsecured can be
>>> held liable if someone uses the network to illegally download
>>> copyrighted content."
>> How does this differ from a secured but public network?  Can operators of
>> coffee shop or hotel lobby wifi networks, which are secured but have a
>> password obtainable from the desk, be held responsible for traffic that
>> their users generate?
> My understanding is that as long as the operator in question complies
> with the DMCA, they are safe in this respect. The important difference
> being that even if they offer the service "free", it's still an
> intentional service for their customers.
>> Are hotels liable for abusive phone calls made by their guests?
> No, under different telecoms law.

What about unsecured *public* networks (as provided by some City Councils, 
for example)? Are they even legal in the UK?

"A provider of a public electronic communications service must take 
appropriate technological and organisational measures to safeguard the 
security of its services..."




More information about the ukcrypto mailing list