Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Nicholas Bohm nbohm at ernest.net
Wed Feb 22 12:09:01 GMT 2012

On 21/02/2012 21:29, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

Laws "which affect the quality of domestic installations", and hinder
people from doing whatever they prefer, require justification.  The
safety of the non-expert occupiers (and their successors) is generally
thought to justify CORGI et al.

It ought to require much better evidence than we have of damage by
copyright infringement to the public welfare to justify either imposing
anomalous "liability for things" on their owners or hindering them in
installing open routers.

Or that's my take, anyway.

Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list