Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Roland Perry 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.
Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list