Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Igor Mozolevsky mozolevsky at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 14:18:06 GMT 2012

On 18 February 2012 13:17, Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  But I'll make a stab at why CN is involved.
> First of all you have to admit that intellectual property theft is a
> unlawful, if not it's moot, but a different point of law.

Well, it's not "theft" in its technical sense but infringement; but
yes, accepted.

> Then we must realise that the "thief" has been identified by the IP address
> of the router. But his excuse is "a stowaway dunnit". The contributory
> negligence presumably arises as a result of the lack of measures used by the
> router's owner/subscriber to secure it from stowaways.

In absence of a positive legal obligation to take those measures,
would you not be bringing a tort action for non-feasance?

>> I have no idea to what extent the American law follows these
>> principles, but I think it's going to be a very long time before
>> similar is tried in this jurisdiction.
> Maybe so, but it's clear the story I highlighted was in the USA.

You did, hence my comment about the two different jurisdictions...

Igor M.

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list