Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Roland Perry lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Sat Feb 18 14:31:12 GMT 2012

In article <4F3FA4BA.6020201 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm 
<nbohm at ernest.net> writes
>I think the original reference was intended to be about whether ISPs
>were liable to contribute to their customers' loss if their customers
>were sued successfully by rightsholders as a result of using unsecured
>routers and the ISPs had failed to do what they should to help the
>customer secure the router.

I think it's about householders claiming to be unable to show it wasn't 
them who stole the movie, because their wifi was unsecured (so they 
can't pass the buck to someone else who they can identify).

Going back to the parking ticket analogy, it's like a driver saying "I 
left the keys in the car and have no idea who borrowed it for half an 
hour and parked on that double yellow line".

The idea, of course, being (a) to discourage people from leaving their 
cars unsecured so that random people can get away with parking on double 
yellow lines and (b) to discourage people from claiming they didn't know 
which hypothetically unidentifiable person borrowed the car, when in 
fact it was them.
Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list