uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070822/tuk-man-a...dband-dba1618_1.html



Absolutely ridiculous.

This will be the "one crime solved in every six years" that these "community support officers" (pretend police) achieve then, will it?

In my opinion, there can be no crime in "piggy backing" if the internet connection is not secured and passworded, to not be used by others.

Failing that, I plead guilty in advance.

Totally agree Mart; we are living in a totally mad world.

Thinking of something now gets long criminal sentences; talking dirty to a middle aged cop pretending to be someone else means prison; using something free because the owner has decided they don't want to protect it is a crime; human beings are rejecting human rights...

BARMY!

Very generous posters here who seem to think anything they have that is not "secured" can be taken or used and they would believe no crime has been committed, ever.

How is somebody's use of an unsecured thing their "human right"? Frankly that sort of comment is worthy of the tabloids and devalues the concept of human rights.

The idea that if I don't lock everything up it is free game for anyone is ridiculous.

Ah but Zoo, it doesn't cost you anything and if you don't want anyone else using it (like I don't) you can easily password it.

If you don't do that you are simply stating that you don't mind anyone else using it.

It's not like a possession. It's use of a service. You hoose whether to protect it or not.

Why should Government, Police, Law be occupied by protecting something you don't want protected?

Better use of taxes, I suggest.

zooloo wrote:
Very generous posters here who seem to think anything they have that is not "secured" can be taken or used and they would believe no crime has been committed, ever.

It's isn't "taken" in the sense that the owner / user is deprived of its use, and has "lost" what they owned; it's "shared" at absolutely no disadvantage to the user.

You can't really have a crime, can you, if nothing has been stolen (although this government will try and make it so)?

Oddly enough, next doors wireless connection, comes up stronger than my own in the lounge.
I don`t use that one, although in France, my laptop consistently found one called "Freeweb".
It could have meant anything and had a very slow signal, but worked.
I have no way of knowing the legality of it.

I think the "crime" is more akin to the row that started between CB radio users and BT in the late seventies.
I can`t see it making any difference to the owner of the connection, but one heckuva of a difference, if the major internet companies only sold one wireless box per srea, which was left unsecured and was used as a "party line". (remember them?)

Our police are doing a wonderful job, so effective at catching all our dangerous criminals. Motorists driving at 31mph, celebrities who fall prey to fanciful accusations from the mentally ill, evil smoking psychopaths who light up in a pub, and now people having a shifty look on the net. I'm so pleased to know my taxes are being so well spent for my protection.

Well, although I agree that these arrests are ridiculous I do not agree that there is no detriment to the owner of the connection if others are using it.

I can tell you that the speed of the owner's connection will definitely be affected by the number of computers that are connected and downloading info.

This is a fact and cannot be disputed.

However, in reality, for the owner of the connection to have any noticeable loss of speed there would have to be quite a few peeps leeching off the connection.

One of my neighbours has an unsecured network that I can pick up when I'm in my kitchen at the back of the house. He doesn't care how many people share his connection as he takes the view that it's not costing him anything. Fair play to him. However, I am sure his view would soon change if lots of people began using it to download music and movies via bittorrent. Then his connection would definitely suffer.

And ITK, before you dispute anything I have said you should know that this is my job. By day, I am an IT Project Manager and my speciality is the global implementation of online tools & applications for my clients. So there

I had a friend in Germany who used Freeweb. I'm guessing, from the name, that it's a free service. Not sure what all the legalities are surrounding it.

Heh!

You can't really have a crime, can you, if nothing has been stolen

Tell that to record labels when mp3's are downloaded to all and sundry. I have downloaded a copy and the original owner still has their copy so no crime has been committed!

I'll use that as my defence when the BPI comes calling!

JK2006 wrote:
Ah but Zoo, it doesn't cost you anything and if you don't want anyone else using it (like I don't) you can easily password it.

If you don't do that you are simply stating that you don't mind anyone else using it.

It's not like a possession. It's use of a service. You hoose whether to protect it or not.

Why should Government, Police, Law be occupied by protecting something you don't want protected?

Better use of taxes, I suggest.

I do have sympathy with the idea there should be a password and if you don't use one you are a fool. Although there will be people who have no idea their wireless is accessible to other people - does that mean what ever happens to them is fine because they didn't take precautions they were unaware of?

If the person using the wireless connection was doing something illegal the trail would lead back to the wireless connection. So quite easily it could cost the owner of the wireless quite dearly.

If you left you car with keys in for a moment is your car fair game because your leaving it like that shows you don't want it protected?

If a crime needs somebody to lose something are we all happy about speeding or drink-driving? Perhaps we do have a crime even if something is not stolen.

Didn't CB radio interfere with some electronic equipment, having some fool blasting over your stereo doesn't mean you have lost anything, so you'd be perfectly happy with that would you?

If I copy song why worry, nobody has lost anything have they?

(BTW Never leave your stuff with the default username/password. Lots of people do, bad move)

Ohh... another thought about "no cost".

Many people have a download limit, so much per month. This is often with the fast domestic options.

So quite quickly I could wipe out your monthly allowance and you have no internet - unless you pay more.

There can easily be a financial cost to the wireless owner, which it what some seem to think it requires before it is a misdemeanor.

Just chatting to my brother Andy, he had the same experience with his neighbour downloading movies. So he simply added a password when the speed dropped and it went up again!

I cannot understand all this. If people don't want to share (I don't) add a password. End of story.

Copying a song is piracy, robbing you of your due fee. That's a crime.

Borrowing a facility when the subscriber is happy for you to do it (and every contract makes it clear how to avoid such a thing) strikes me as something the state should not be spending my taxes monitoring.

Moving the subject slightly over on obscure crimes, some readers may remember the Poilsh imported fags thread I started about six months ago.
Guess what?
I`ve just had my wrists slapped about it under CEMA 1979 section 49.

JK2006 wrote:

Copying a song is piracy, robbing you of your due fee. That's a crime.

Using your wireless connection may push you over your limit which would then cost you money. Using your bandwidth means your connection is slower.

At best they are robbing you of your due bandwidth. That may be a nebulous concept but so is Intellectual Property for most people. Just because they don't understand they are stealing doesn't mean it isn't theft.

If your open connection was being used for illegal purposes - and given one must go to some effort to find these open connections the question why somebody wants to use it arises - if it is being used for an illegal purpose the buck stops with the owner of the wireless connection.

An open door is not an invitation to come in and help yourself.

Mart wrote:

I`ve just had my wrists slapped about it under CEMA 1979 section 49.

What happened?

Vince W wrote:
Heh!

You can't really have a crime, can you, if nothing has been stolen

Tell that to record labels when mp3's are downloaded to all and sundry. I have downloaded a copy and the original owner still has their copy so no crime has been committed!

I'll use that as my defence when the BPI comes calling!



Good point Vince - BUT in the case of MP3's you are actually depriving someone as you would have bought if you hadn't had an MP3?

There is a difference ! The broadband user was never going to SELL his connection so has not lost anything

Pete Clarke wrote:

And ITK, before you dispute anything I have said you should know that this is my job. By day, I am an IT Project Manager and my speciality is the global implementation of online tools & applications for my clients. So there


Now, now, Pete ! Stop being "tetchy" !
The sun is out, the sky is blue, it's a Bank Holiday !!