UK Police Cracking Down on Broadband Theft

dubculture writes "A 39 year-old man in West London was arrested for dishonestly obtaining free internet access" from an unsecured wireless router nearby. The article discusses a couple of other cases, including one where a fine of £500 (~US$1000) was handed out for, essentially, taking advantage of someone else's inability (read: apathy) towards securing their home network."

Comments

Ah, techonology...

[Shikaku]

These days you can Wardrive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving) with a Nintendo DS. You can even access the internet through that said Nintendo DS using the information gathered. Granted, it is quite limited on the scope of what it can do, but the point is it isn't as hard as one would think.

The analogy of someone leaving the door open is quite correct in a way. However, the technology makes the door more like an unlocked door of a giant mansion with many entrances that are all unlocked. People, especially the common person, would probably never know that someone was using the internet.

Even with encryption, it has been proven it isn't hard to break anyway: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 05/1428250

Re:No problem

[BillyBlaze]

Other than the bicycle analogy, why should we assume the default state is "I don't want you using my WiFi"?

If we must use analogies, let's keep it in the realm of computers. Running an open WiFi is like running a public web server - even if the url isn't use-this-webserver.example.com, we still assume you intend for people to connect to it. In other words, there's nothing magical about express permission - there are lots of things you can do by convention. Since this is a new legal area, we have a choice which convention to choose.

Besides that argument, there are other advantages to assuming it's open unless secured. You're less likely to be arrested just for hanging around somewhere with your laptop. We don't have to waste public funds arresting you unless the owner complains. And we all get more free WiFi.

Re:"Dishonestly obtaining free internet access..."

[ManxStef]

If anyone's interested, here's the relevant section of the Communications Act 2003:

• 125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
  • (1)
    A person who--
    • (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
    • (b)does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
    is guilty of an offence.
  • (2)
    It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
    • (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
    • (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Here's the relevant section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

• 1 Unauthorised access to computer material
  • (1)
    A person is guilty of an offence if--
    • (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
    • (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
    • (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
  • (2)
    The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
    • (a) any particular program or data;
    • (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
    • (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
  • (3)
    A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.