Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

[Roland Perry]

In article <069DA878E6E146A781F24677D0C5E2CE at MaryPC>, Mary Hawking 
<maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk> writes
>Does this apply to private users?
>Suppose an OAP comes on the internet and does not realise that there is a
>way to secure the WiFi router (or does not realise it *is* wifi - and
>junior-next-door uses it - will the OAP be held liable?

I think that's what they are trying to establish in the USA (which of 
course is not a precedent for the UK).

>If so, will the Internet Provider have failed in its Duty of Care (if it has
>any)?

An even better can of worms.

>Mary Hawking
>"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
>can do it if we really have to."  Mark Earles on Radio 4.  
>and don't forget patients like Fred!
>http://primaryhealthinfo.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/fred-and-his-dog-an-update
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Theo Markettos [mailto:theom+news at chiark.greenend.org.uk]
>Sent: 14 February 2012 11:42
>To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
>Subject: Re: Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
>
>In article <KsB7ZVDbBVMPFAlV at perry.co.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
>> "A federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts could test the question of
>> whether individuals who leave their wireless networks unsecured can be
>> held liable if someone uses the network to illegally download
>> copyrighted content."
>
>How does this differ from a secured but public network?  Can operators of
>coffee shop or hotel lobby wifi networks, which are secured but have a
>password obtainable from the desk, be held responsible for traffic that
>their users generate?
>
>Are hotels liable for abusive phone calls made by their guests?
>
>Theo
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Roland Perry