DaisyD wrote:What you believe or doubt has nothing to do with it.
Do you honestly believe most people who have open access are honestly doing so out of the kindness of their hearts for anyone to use?
I doubt it.
DaisyD wrote:If the law says it is, but it is still a legal grey area (see my first post in this thread).
Insurance might not pay up, but the police would still crime it and investigate it because it is still a crime.
GoldLightan wrote:Assuming that he's not given permission. This is why the technical definition of permission is the best definition.
This is all very nice, but it assumes the guy with open wifi is on an unmetered, uncapped service.
Police really don't have time for this when they're busy dealing with domestics, targeting car thieves and burglars etc.
DaisyD wrote:The 1968 law defines theft as "With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". That would mean a denial of service attack or re-configuring the router so it doesn't connect to the Internet and changing the password so it can't be fixed. Neither is the case.
You are aware that the theft law of 1968 actually covers thefts of things that aren't physical things, right?
DaisyD wrote:Is it dishonest to connect to an open wi-fi router? Windows XP SP0 amongst others does it by default and on other versions of XP or Vista you're a click away from the same behaviour perhaps while you're trying to get your home-set up to work. If you don't circumvent security measures then you can argue you're being perfectly honest. And does the persion have the intention of avoiding payment of a charge for the provision of the service? Be interesting to see how you answer that one (probably with a simple "yes" as you did with a simple "wrong".
Of course all this brings us back to the Section 125 of the Communications Act 2003.
It's a little unsettling to see how the police make their case (it's "wrong" to to do this), then look for laws to support their case. Surely the police should look for laws which have been broken, then make their case.