This is an area I did not worry about until this week when I got a new wireless capable laptop. I can now sit in my front room and - if I wanted to
- I would be able to leech of off two domestic wireless networks.
I'm getting my own wireless modem this week so it's not a problem but was very interested in the previous posts on this thread.
I'm rather puzzled as to why the prosecution suceeded of the West London chap.
The BBC report says "Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is an offence covered by the Computer Misuse Act. In Straszkiewcz's case, he was prosecuted under the Communications Act and found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service.". Surely a router is not a computer and is this a factual error?
Additionally the Communications Act states "Section 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."
Not to sure how that would apply as the service was paid for by the, presumably, homeowner and so nobody has actually suffered any financial loss (unless it is the physical number of 'stolen' bits that can be calculated?).
Is this the equivalent to putting your rubbish in someone else's bin for the refuse people to take away? The service is paid for, nobody has lost out (and whilst there may be a by-law about doing it) it does not appear to be a criminal act.
Somebody entering your house because the door has been left open would, presumably, be a clearly defined offence of burgulary so I'm not to sure if there is a comparision.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick - enlightenment would be nice to add to my mental store of pointless knowledge!
Nav