Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
nbohm at ernest.net
Fri Feb 24 17:24:56 GMT 2012
On 24/02/2012 17:20, Ian Batten wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2012, at 15:48, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
>> On 24/02/2012 15:34, Ian Batten wrote:
>>> On 24 Feb 2012, at 13:52, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In article <8EA7ED0D-A4F2-4A6A-8B0D-4D6DB4BEFBB3 at batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>>>>> I think we can safely say that legislation that forces end users to
>>>>> keep evidential logs of activity on their private networks is
>>>>> (a) unlikely (b) unenforceable and (c) unimplementable.
>>>> The way you persuade people to do it, is a presumption that the subscriber was the offender, in the absence of logs. Whether it'll never happen - who knows. The Internet is in its infancy.
>>> That places a burden on the end user which is completely unacceptable. For a start off, the logs would have to be tamper-proof in some way, and contain "truth". Who would appear in court to attest to the accuracy of the logs?
>> You can subpoena the user to bring the logs to court (with contempt
>> sanctions for failing). If he won't agree to testify to their truth,
>> you can threaten him with prosecution for failing to keep accurate
>> logs. He might respond by objecting to testifying on the grounds that
>> it might incriminate him (and it would take primary legislation to get
>> round this).
> Surely his solicitor would respond that the accuracy of the logs can only be discussed by an expert witness with the skills to forensically analyse them? You can't attest to the accuracy of something you don't understand. The whole thing's absolutely absurd.
Indeed, for your reason as well as mine.
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
More information about the ukcrypto