Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

[Nicholas Bohm]

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).

Sounds a good game.  Roland will love it.

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