Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Sat Feb 18 09:43:01 GMT 2012
In article <EBFD0060-DDA6-4817-82DE-3B0E0E64ED5E at batten.eu.org>, Ian
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>your insurance is invalid unless you have replaced all of your locks
>with bump and snap-resistant cylinders.
I've had insurance policies that specify a certain British Standard for
the locks, but I have no idea whether that means such locks are bump and
snap resistant (or even if the standards attempt to test this - but if
they don't one is left wondering what the standard does in fact do).
> So even though the locks (read It would be manifestly unreasonable to
>argue that encryption marketed as sufficient in fact wasn't and a
>random customer should have known that
Sure, but the question in hand is about not using the supplied
encryption at all.
More information about the ukcrypto