[US-CA] Wifi security non-feasance (no liability)

[Nicholas Bohm]

On 13/09/2012 07:44, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> We had this discussion a while back, and now a judge (state-side)
> ruled, amongst other things, that a defendant has no duty in
> situations of “non-feasance” unless a “special relationship” exists
> which would give rise to such duty.
>
> https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/Order%20Granting%20MOTD.pdf
>

I would expect an English court to reason in exactly the same way as the
US District Court about the negligence claim based on failing to secure
a wireless network, and to reject the claim accordingly.  (The other
issues were about US statute law which has no UK parallels.)

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