Wireless Hijacker Dealt First UK Punishment

paella_dodger writes "The BBC is reporting on a recent UK court case whereby a man was fined £500, sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge and had his laptop confiscated for browsing the 'net on his neighbour's wireless Internet conenction. Perhaps I should secure my neighbour's wireless connection for him before Windows automagically connects to it and gets me arrested!"

Comments

How do u Hijack an OPEN network???

[TheSloth2001ca]

If the network is OPEN then u should be able to use it at will. if you don't want anyone to use your wireless network then secure it somehow. Now anyone that wants u use it has to break you security and that can be considered a crime. If it's OPEN its fair game.

Re:Justice

[BobSutan]

The 1970's called and they want their reasoning back. Intent hasn't really been considered in court (at least in the USA) for a few decades now. This may seem inflamatory, but the cold hard truth is that if a law was broken then you're gonna get screwed. In truth it really depends on if the DA/prosecutor will follow procedure, or use common sense to determine if they'll actually go after you, so YMMV.

Re:Quit with the bad analogies.

[Fnord666]

You just don't get it, do you? Hopefully confiscation of your laptop and a 500 pound fine will clarify things for you. I bet it did for this guy. No amount of handwaving is going to change the facts or the precedents. Sorry about your luck. Go leech bandwidth somewhere else.

FFS

[JackDW]

FFS. There is a really simple principle here. IT IS WRONG TO STEAL. Using someone else's network, someone else's bandwidth and someone else's electricity without permission is stealing.

I can only assume that this kind of thing is now so common amongst Slashdot users that it is now assumed to be morally justifiable. In fact, it seems that most of the people who think that this thief should not have been prosecuted are actually blaming the owner of the insecure hotspot. Yes, that's right - you are saying that theft is the fault of the victim, not the thief.

I agree that the hotspot should have been secured, just like front doors should be locked. But an unlocked front door is not an invitation to come in and take whatever you want, and neither is an insecure hotspot.