Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Roland Perry lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Tue Feb 21 21:29:31 GMT 2012

In article <20120221171252.GA88839 at banjo.employees.org>, Derek Fawcus 
<dfawcus+lists-ukcrypto at employees.org> writes
>> Would that reasonable person deny the CORGI gas installer scheme, or the
>> need for CE marks on some equipment, on the grounds they might not be
>> able to pass the qualification or test the apparatus themselves?  What's
>> needed here is public awareness that certain standards need to be met,
>> then you can find the equipment (and if necessary installers) to meet
>> that standard.
>I'd suggests there is a significant difference.
>wrt CORGI,  there is a risk of death;  and widespread damage for poor installations.
>As to CE marks - as I recall they're a joke,  being a self certification scheme.
>So the comparision to a situation where copyright infringment is the risk
>is not really valid.

But I'm not comparing CORGI/CE and copyright piracy, just drawing an 
analogy that sometimes there are laws which affect the quality of 
domestic installations. Remember - this was about saying you shouldn't 
install a router without simple encryption, which is probably more basic 
even than CE marks.
Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list