Wide open access points
nut
I've some questions for the legal gurus in here...
There's a shop across the road from me with an open wireless network.
I don't have wireless here - i'm all wired up so it doesn't affect me, but
anyone visiting me with a wireless laptop gets issued an IP without any
intervention on their part and can surf the net for free.
What is the legality of this? Is it their fault for having a wide open
network, or are my friends committing a crime just by turning their laptops
on? Am i committing a crime by letting them turn their laptops on?!
Another couple of questions - which i have no intention of doing, just
curious...
What if i set up a wireless box running P2P on their network? Am i
committing a crime by using their bandwidth? Are they committing a crime by
"letting me" download illegal software on their network?
Finally, what if i were to reconfigure their router, or browse their
network, or copy files? At what point am i committing a crime?
Mike H
I'm not legally qualified, but if I could just make a point or two..
1. All the legislation in this area is quite new, so there are few
precedents to go by, thus it is difficult to know how the law will be
applied in practice.
2. There was a test case a few months back (perhaps someone with a little
time could Google for it) where a guy was prosecuted as a result of
accessing someone elses' wireless network. This situation was a little
different to what you yourself have described, but the features of the case
were that he did access the network on several occasions, he had been asked
to stop, he was prosecuted for (IIRC) using a [telegraphic??] service
without payment. Also, I believe that an attempt had been made to make the
target network secure, but this was implied in the reports I read as opposed
to being definitively stated.
3. Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act has been written so widely that you
are probably infringing it by logging on your OWN computer! Go read the Act,
so some lateral thinking, and you will see that my comment is only half
joking! Again, this is new legislation, so we will need to see (over time)
how it would be applied in practice, but (IMHO) it would certainly cover the
latter example scenarios you mention.
4. What is the difference between an Access Point which has been left open,
and a public wireless HotSpot, and how would a user be able to (beyond a
reasonable doubt?) tell the difference?
Regards, - Mike
"nut" <globaldigita...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e4f2l9$2bqt$1...@usenet2.ath.cx...
Peter Crosland
Any use of a computer system that you are not authorised to use is an
offence. Try asking in uk.legal.moderated for more information.
Peter Crosland
Tim Downie
> Any use of a computer system that you are not authorised to use is an
> offence. Try asking in uk.legal.moderated for more information.
What if you don't know that you're using someone else's network? (I've
known it happen). I guess ignorance isn't an excuse but whatever the law
says, I think the onus must be on the access point owner to make it secure.
Leaving a network open is akin to throwing candy in the street. Expecting
folk *not* to pick it up because the law says so is unrealistic.
Tim
John DH
There was a case not so long back where the circumstances were very similar.
The court held that the person using the others network without consent was
committing an offence. The fact that the network was not secure was not
accepted as a defence. I can't remember the exact fine, but it was hefty to
say the least.
There is a whole raft of legislation under the theft act which covers this.
John DH
Richard Tobin
Tim Downie <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>What if you don't know that you're using someone else's network? (I've
>known it happen). I guess ignorance isn't an excuse
Ignorance of the law itself isn't an excuse, but many laws only apply
if you "knowingly" perform some action.
-- Richard
Tim Downie
That muddys the water a bit then. Surely all you'd need to do to keep
yourself in the clear then is to deny that you were "knowingly" using
someone else's network.
I'm not trying to defend using an open network BTW, it's just that the law
seems to be a bit out of touch with modern wireless technology which in
effect, lays out a huge "Welcome" mat to all and sundry if you don't secure
your network.
Tim
Nick
> Hi all
[...]
> What if i set up a wireless box running P2P on their network? Am i
> committing a crime by using their bandwidth? Are they committing a crime by
> "letting me" download illegal software on their network?
Ultimately, responsibility for actions taken over the broadband
connection rests with the account holder of that connection. However,
that doesn't mean that the person using the p2p software is off the hook
;) - as breach of copyright (or ownership of other dodgy stuff - say,
child porn) could be a seperate charge levelled against the user of the
open access point.
> Finally, what if i were to reconfigure their router, or browse their
> network, or copy files? At what point am i committing a crime?
If you cannot prove authorisation, then (AFAIK) any access is a crime -
whether you modify/copy/break anything or not.
IANAL (thankfully!), but I think that's fairly close...
xF,
...Nick
Richard Tobin
Tim Downie <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>That muddys the water a bit then. Surely all you'd need to do to keep
>yourself in the clear then is to deny that you were "knowingly" using
>someone else's network.
You might equally say that if you were accused of murder, all you'd
need to do is deny that you "intended" to kill the victim. But in
both cases, the jury would have to decide whether you were telling the
truth.
-- Richard
Beck
"John DH" <-> wrote in message news:446b172b.0@entanet...
> There was a case not so long back where the circumstances were very
> similar.
>
> The court held that the person using the others network without consent
> was
> committing an offence. The fact that the network was not secure was not
> accepted as a defence. I can't remember the exact fine, but it was hefty
> to
> say the least.
>
> There is a whole raft of legislation under the theft act which covers
> this.
How did they find out who it was?
Joker7
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d0mcnF...@individual.net...
:
Personal I feel the onus should be on the equipment makers to make it easier
to secure/and work.
Chris
--
Cheap As Chips Broadband http://yeah.kick-butt.co.uk
Superb hosting & domain name deals http://host.kick-butt.co.uk
ato...@hotmail.com
On 17-May-2006, "Joker7" <sat_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : I'm not trying to defend using an open network BTW, it's just that the law
> : seems to be a bit out of touch with modern wireless technology which in
> : effect, lays out a huge "Welcome" mat to all and sundry if you don't
> secure your network.
And they don't have to worry about nearby lightning strikes.
Colin Forrester
> Personal I feel the onus should be on the equipment makers to make it easier
> to secure/and work.
The only thing manufacturers should do is turn wireless off on the
device by default and only allow it to be switched on after taking the
customer through some sort of set-up wizard with lots of clues and warnings.
Simon Dobson
There comes a point when you have to say enough dumbing down is enough.
I'm not sure the above would work, look at all the warning messages you
get nowadays, yet machines still end up riddled with Spyware and
whatever else. People just don't read or understand the warnings.
Perhaps it's time for the average user to accept computers need
configuring by someone with an ounce of clue. I didn't buy my car and
expect neon lights under the bonnet with "I AM AN ALTERNATOR. CHECK ME
IF BATTERY DOESN'T CHARGE". If my battery doesn't charge, I go to a
mechanic. Same with everything else; If I wanted a new radiator fitting
in my house, I'd call a plumber. For all there may be a leaflet in B&Q's
telling me how to muddle through it, I know if I want the thing doing
right I should really call someone in. Should computers be any different?
The problem with all the idiot proofing is that it makes it difficult
for an experienced user to get things done. If I'm setting up an access
point for someone, I don't want some wizard appearing and explaining
what WEP, WAP, DHCP, LAN, WAN and channels are. I just want the thing
working.
Perhaps it's time for Joe Public to budget an extra few quid on top of
their PC World purchase and have someone in to set things up.. Then they
know it's done right.
Tim Downie
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>> Joker7 wrote:
>>
>>> Personal I feel the onus should be on the equipment makers to make
>>> it easier to secure/and work.
>>
>> The only thing manufacturers should do is turn wireless off on the
>> device by default and only allow it to be switched on after taking
>> the customer through some sort of set-up wizard with lots of clues
>> and warnings.
>
> There comes a point when you have to say enough dumbing down is
> enough. I'm not sure the above would work, look at all the warning
> messages you get nowadays, yet machines still end up riddled with
> Spyware and whatever else. People just don't read or understand the
> warnings.
>
> Perhaps it's time for the average user to accept computers need
> configuring by someone with an ounce of clue. I didn't buy my car and
> expect neon lights under the bonnet with "I AM AN ALTERNATOR. CHECK ME
> IF BATTERY DOESN'T CHARGE". If my battery doesn't charge, I go to a
> mechanic. Same with everything else; If I wanted a new radiator
> fitting in my house, I'd call a plumber. For all there may be a
> leaflet in B&Q's telling me how to muddle through it, I know if I
> want the thing doing right I should really call someone in. Should
> computers be any different?
It's not quite the same though, is it. As far as Joe Public is concerned,
as soon as they've entered their user name and password, more often than not
it'll work. They may have to fiddle to turn the wireless on but most folk
I'm sure are blissfully unaware of wireless security issues. From their
standpoint, nothing is broken or needs fixing.
Tim
Tito
I think the manufacturers of these things should take some
responsibility as the user, as dumb as they are, are only following the
instructions that they provide. How hard can it be for the makers to add
into their annoying wizard the security setup.
John DH
"Beck" <be...@removephotoscene.co.uk> wrote in message
news:446b428b$0$2672$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
John DH
gort
> Perhaps it's time for Joe Public to budget an extra few quid on top of
> their PC World purchase and have someone in to set things up.. Then they
> know it's done right.
That does not always work. Went last month to someone who had got a '
expert' in, from ad in local paper, to setup their wireless broadband.
First he told them a pack of lies about their router being broken and then
when he had ' fixed' the router he left it totaly unsecure. Oh yes, cost
them best part of £60 !!.
Dave
Andy
car that kept appearing in their road.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/uk_war_driver_fined
Simon Dobson
>
> It's not quite the same though, is it. As far as Joe Public is concerned,
> as soon as they've entered their user name and password, more often than not
> it'll work. They may have to fiddle to turn the wireless on but most folk
> I'm sure are blissfully unaware of wireless security issues. From their
> standpoint, nothing is broken or needs fixing.
Nothing is broken or needs fixing. It just needs configuring.
So they can do what you've said and make a boob of things, or read the
manual and do it properly. But then what depths should manufacturers go
to in their manuals?
With all the wizards in the world, the average user will *never* bother
to read them properly and understand the ins and outs. So is the
solution to add more wizards and idiot-proofing (which they'll ignore),
or just make things easier for the guy who comes and sets it up?
Simon Dobson
This is always a problem of course, but every field has this problem;
Builders, gas fitters and so on. Eventually these people put themselves
out of business. I would try and avoid anyone I'd never used before
without a recommendation from family or friend.
Simon Dobson
>
> I think the manufacturers of these things should take some
> responsibility as the user, as dumb as they are, are only following the
> instructions that they provide. How hard can it be for the makers to add
> into their annoying wizard the security setup.
Would they read it though, or just "Next" through that part?
Doz
Apparently the bloke was parked outside his house on a regular basis... using a
laptop. His number plate gave him away!
Beck
"Andy" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
news:GvqdnayvLOmJo_HZ...@pipex.net...
>>
> I seem to recall that it started off with local residents reporting a car
> that kept appearing in their road.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/uk_war_driver_fined
Under those circumstances he was caught out because people became suspicious
of his car.
What about a house in the neighbourhood? On my estate it could be one of
many houses. I don't see how they can identify the person other than
seizing everybodys computers.
Colin Forrester
Well if just Nexting through did not enable wireless it will be fine.
Unfortunately too many access points come out of the box ready to use
with no password (or a standard default), no security, etc.
gort
> Unfortunately too many access points come out of the box ready to use
> with no password (or a standard default), no security, etc.
Quite impressed by a BT 2091 router which I went to the other day,
straight from BT had WEP setup and working, ( yes I know) but at least
there was some security out of the box.
Dave
Ivor Jones
"Mike H" <no....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:v9udnW2rEKY...@bt.com
[snip]
> 4. What is the difference between an Access Point which
> has been left open, and a public wireless HotSpot, and
> how would a user be able to (beyond a reasonable doubt?)
> tell the difference?
A public hotspot will usually charge, for a start..! There *are* free ones
around, but they're in the minority and you certainly wouldn't find one in
say a residential street..!
Also the SSID of a public hotspot will usually indicate what it is. A
private one that the user hasn't bothered to set up properly will most
likely broadcast something like "Netgear" or "Linksys" or whatever.
If in doubt, don't..!
Ivor
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
Ivor Jones
"Andy" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
news:GvqdnayvLOmJo_HZ...@pipex.net
[snip]
> I seem to recall that it started off with local residents
> reporting a car that kept appearing in their road.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/uk_war_driver_fined
Where's Islewoth..?!
Ivor
Ivor Jones
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4d0l7pF...@individual.net
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> > Any use of a computer system that you are not
> > authorised to use is an offence. Try asking in
> > uk.legal.moderated for more information.
>
> What if you don't know that you're using someone else's
> network? (I've known it happen). I guess ignorance
> isn't an excuse but whatever the law says, I think the
> onus must be on the access point owner to make it secure.
Hmm, well it seems to me that if the computer system isn't yours then it
must by definition be somebody else's..! If it's yours then you'll know
about it and be able to prove it.
> Leaving a network open is akin to throwing candy in the
> street. Expecting folk *not* to pick it up because the
> law says so is unrealistic.
If I were to leave £1000 on the pavement it would be foolish of me but it
would still be illegal for you to pick it up and keep it.
Theft by virtue of being an idiot is still theft..!
Ivor
Rob Walker
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> Any use of a computer system that you are not authorised to use is an
>> offence. Try asking in uk.legal.moderated for more information.
>
> What if you don't know that you're using someone else's network? (I've
> known it happen). I guess ignorance isn't an excuse but whatever the law
> says, I think the onus must be on the access point owner to make it
> secure.
>
> folk *not* to pick it up because the law says so is unrealistic.
>
To be honest you shouldn't have your PC set to connect to non-preferred
networks. People say they come set to do this by default but I've never seen
one that does.
Rob
Ivor Jones
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4d0mcnF...@individual.net
> Richard Tobin wrote:
[snip]
> > Ignorance of the law itself isn't an excuse, but many
> > laws only apply if you "knowingly" perform some action.
>
> That muddys the water a bit then. Surely all you'd need
> to do to keep yourself in the clear then is to deny that
> you were "knowingly" using someone else's network.
Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
unknowingly..? If it's not yours then it's somebody else's and if you
don't have that somebody else's permission then you are at fault.
Ivor
Ivor Jones
"Colin Forrester" <co...@thefrogslepthere.com> wrote in
message news:4d1fb3F...@individual.net
The AVM Fritz!Box WLAN ADSL modem/router/VoIP ATA is AFAIK the only device
to come pre-configured with WLAN security switched on by default. Why this
isn't the case for all devices I will never know.
Ivor
Beck
"Ivor Jones" <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4d39v4F...@individual.net...
Middlesex, near Twickenham
Richard Tobin
Ivor Jones <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
>unknowingly..?
It might be a network that the owner allows the public to use. Or
(and real examples of this have been quoted here before I think) you
might think you are connecting to your own network but in fact be
connecting to someone else's.
-- Richard
Alan J. Flavell
> Ivor Jones <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
> >unknowingly..?
>
> Or (and real examples of this have been quoted here before I think)
> you might think you are connecting to your own network but in fact
> be connecting to someone else's.
I have found my laptop had accidentally connected itself to the
neighbour's AP instead of my own - without me doing anything to
deliberately provoke it.
"Fortunately" their AP has WEP on it, so, although the control panel
showed it as connected, there was no productive traffic passing.
But if they had been unprotected, I might not have noticed the
discrepancy.
Ivor Jones
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@ppepc20.ph.gla.ac.uk
Hmm, maybe it's me then. When I fire up my laptop's wireless access I
always read what it is connecting to. If I'm anywhere other than at home
then I connect manually anyway.
Ivor
gort
> The AVM Fritz!Box WLAN ADSL modem/router/VoIP ATA is AFAIK the only device
> to come pre-configured with WLAN security switched on by default. Why this
> isn't the case for all devices I will never know.
>
> Ivor
The BT 2091 I went to the other day had WEP enabled out of the box, thats
why the customer could not access it from another pc. Quite impressed as
it was BT!!
Dave
Tim Downie
> "Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:4d0mcnF...@individual.net
>> Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Ignorance of the law itself isn't an excuse, but many
>>> laws only apply if you "knowingly" perform some action.
>>
>> That muddys the water a bit then. Surely all you'd need
>> to do to keep yourself in the clear then is to deny that
>> you were "knowingly" using someone else's network.
>
> Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
> unknowingly..?
True life example. Router/modem went belly up, wireless laptop sought a
network connection and the user clicked "yes" to connect to a non-preferred
network without understanding what that meant.
Tim
Tim Downie
> Hmm, maybe it's me then. When I fire up my laptop's wireless access I
> always read what it is connecting to. If I'm anywhere other than at
> home then I connect manually anyway.
I think that's true of all Windows PCs but you know where to look and what
to look for. Not every user knows that.
Tim
james
It's happened to me also. My own AP was being interefered with by another
neighbour who kept setting their channel to the same as mine for some
reason, and my laptop must have given up on both of those and connected to
*another* neighbour who seems to have the strongest signal of all of us!
Chris French
<iv...@despammed.invalid> writes
wirless AP without noticing.
I only noticed when I couldn't access one machine from another even
though they were both connected to the net at the time. One via our AP
the other via the neighbours.
SSID was unchanged, no encryption, admin password un changed, so easy to
get access to it if I'd wanted to.
--
Chris French
Alan J. Flavell
> It's happened to me also. My own AP was being interefered with by
> another neighbour who kept setting their channel to the same as mine
> for some reason,
Perhaps they're thinking the same thing about you ;-)
I've seen neighbours using ch. 1, 3, 6 and occasionally 11, but
I'm hoping they can't find their ETSI mode selection and will stay
with the default FCC settings, because I use ch. 13 ;-)
cheers
Clint Sharp
<m...@privacy.net> writes
common across the 2Wire range as well.
--
Clint Sharp
Clint Sharp
<iv...@despammed.invalid> writes
>Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
>unknowingly..? If it's not yours then it's somebody else's and if you
>don't have that somebody else's permission then you are at fault.
>
>Ivor
>
>
unprotected and three of those called 'Netgear'. Only when the
electricity went off in my friends flat did he realise that he still had
Internet access on his laptop. It's likely that he'd been using someone
else's broadband ever since he bought the laptop and router. It's
obvious where the fault lies but it's an easy mistake to make if you're
clueless about networks and the people around you are as well.
--
Clint Sharp
Stu C
"Ivor Jones" <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>
> If I were to leave £1000 on the pavement it would be foolish of me but it
> would still be illegal for you to pick it up and keep it.
>
> Theft by virtue of being an idiot is still theft..!
>
> Ivor
>
>
wouldn't you get an on the spot fine for littering though?
dennis@home
"Ivor Jones" <iv...@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody else's network
> unknowingly..? If it's not yours then it's somebody else's and if you
> don't have that somebody else's permission then you are at fault.
Its not that difficult.
My XD2 connected to some other network while I was sitting in my living
room.
I only noticed because I was trying to access my media centre and it
couldn't find it.
I will have to see if I can stop it doing so when I get time.
My XP machine doesn't behave in this way.
gort
> The 2Wire BT home gateway routers are like this IIRC, I think it's
> common across the 2Wire range as well.
I wonder if they all use the same WEP key!!
Dave
Tim Downie
> Personal I feel the onus should be on the equipment makers to make it
> easier to secure/and work.
Okay, here's what I think they should do.
All new routers should be supplied pre-configured with a unique WEP key.
The key itself should be printed on a removable sticker that is placed over
the power connection for the router. That way by default at least some
encryption would be in place and you'd have a printed record of the WEP key
to allow you to configure your router wirelessly (if you so desired).
Tim
Ivor Jones
"gort" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.18....@privacy.net
> > The AVM Fritz!Box WLAN ADSL modem/router/VoIP ATA is
> > AFAIK the only device to come pre-configured with WLAN
> > security switched on by default. Why this isn't the
> > case for all devices I will never know.
>
> The BT 2091 I went to the other day had WEP enabled out
> of the box, thats why the customer could not access it
> from another pc. Quite impressed as it was BT!!
Interesting, thanks. WEP isn't all that secure though; WPA-PSK is
preferred, while not 100% secure (is anything..?) it's a whole order
better than WEP.
Ivor
Ivor Jones
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4d3io8F...@individual.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
[snip]
> > Can someone explain to me how can you use somebody
> > else's network unknowingly..?
>
> True life example. Router/modem went belly up, wireless
> laptop sought a network connection and the user clicked
> "yes" to connect to a non-preferred network without
> understanding what that meant.
User needs educating then.
Ivor
Tim Downie
Duh! Maybe it comes as a surprise to you but a very large proportion of the
population have no interest in what goes on under the bonnet of a computer,
they just want a box that works.
Until it becomes impossible to set up a router without security enabled,
many many folk will carry on blissfully unaware of any problem.
Tim
> Ivor
Ivor Jones
"Tim Downie" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4d5u3aF...@individual.net
[snip]
> Duh! Maybe it comes as a surprise to you but a very
> large proportion of the population have no interest in
> what goes on under the bonnet of a computer, they just
> want a box that works.
If anyone who is using a system that may infringe on someone else's
system, either by accident or design, then they need to be educated to
that fact and told how to prevent it if necessary.
It's possible to drive a car without having a clue as to the workings of
the internal combustion engine, but it is still essential to be aware how
you interact with others when you're behind the wheel.
> Until it becomes impossible to set up a router without
> security enabled, many many folk will carry on blissfully
> unaware of any problem.
Oh. That's ok then. Right, that's me in my place.
Ivor
Clint Sharp
<m...@privacy.net> writes
--
Clint Sharp
gort
Oh agree and once customer has decided where everything is going, house
wise, will be put on WPA-PSK, bloody quick.
Dave
JamesB
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@ppepc20.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>
>> It's happened to me also. My own AP was being interefered with by
>> another neighbour who kept setting their channel to the same as mine
>> for some reason,
>
working for a day or two until they changed theirs again.
Actually its all assumption - I can see 3 nets close by using NetStumbler
and steer clear of those anyway, the interfering one was invisible... so the
problem could have been something else, I'm just making an assumption based
on the evidence :)
James
Peter Lynch
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> Any use of a computer system that you are not authorised to use is an
>> offence. Try asking in uk.legal.moderated for more information.
>
> What if you don't know that you're using someone else's network? (I've
> known it happen). I guess ignorance isn't an excuse but whatever the law
> says, I think the onus must be on the access point owner to make it secure.
>
> Leaving a network open is akin to throwing candy in the street. Expecting
> folk *not* to pick it up because the law says so is unrealistic.
>
IANAL but it's closer to not locking the front door on your house.
It's still an offence for someone to enter your property, but without
signs of forced entry you'd have a hard time proving any loss was not
your own fault.
However .... getting back to the case in point. Has the OP tried
telling the shop that they have a potential security problem? If
they have been told, but not done anything about it, one may argue
that they are partially responsible for any "illegal" access.
Alternatively, it may be the shops (what do they sell? computer bits?)
policy to promote free internet access.
On a practical level, I think it would be very difficult to prosecute
a drive-by access of an open AP.
Pete
--
..........................................................................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................
nut
> However .... getting back to the case in point. Has the OP tried
> telling the shop that they have a potential security problem? If
> they have been told, but not done anything about it, one may argue
> that they are partially responsible for any "illegal" access.
The shop is an infamous estate agent, notorious in the area for having their
fingers in a number of pies... i've heard enough stories that i don't want
to help them, nor do i want their custom by charging to secure it.
> Alternatively, it may be the shops (what do they sell? computer bits?)
> policy to promote free internet access.
Definately not - see above.
There's around 40 residential apartments close enough to the shop to pick it
up, and theirs is the only AP available... so there are probably a couple of
uninvited guests already using it... possibly even without knowing how
they're getting internet access.
Mike H
My point was that it could be arguable. After all, access 'permissions'
aren't called that for nothing!
Some operating systems in their default configuration will connect to
whichever network is available nearby. I genuinely can't see a prosecution
arising because a machine (Windows notebook) in it default configuration
talks to another machine (router) in its default configuration, but I guess
stranger things have happened!
Until case law sorts this out, the 11th commandment prevails!
Cheers! - Mike