Now back to the original argument. I believe if you log onto a network without authorisation, it is theft of bandwidth.
Theft ... hmmmm :
Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Theft Act, 1968 states that a person is guilty of theft if they :
dishonestly
appropriate
property
belonging to another
with the intention
of permanently depriving the owner of it.
All points of the above definition must be proved for the offence to have been committed.
So, if I went and sat on the steps outside my local library, where I knew there was "free" wi-fi access, fired up my PDA, turned on the wi-fi feature, ran Internet Explorer and successfully connected, I would not necessarily know to which network I had connected.
It would be quite reasonable for me to assume that I was connected legitimately to the library access point, but could quite as easily be connected, unwittingly, to one owned by the chap living next door.
THIS WOULD NOT BE THEFT !
No dishonesty on my part,
You could argue that I had "appropriated" a wireless connection, but,
a wireless connection is not property - it is a service,
Yes - the wireless connection point does belong to another,
No - I am not intending to permanently deprive the owner of his wireless connection - just use it for a while.
So it definitely is NOT Theft - you have to study the precise definitions of any offence to work out whether that offence has been committed.
The offence that Straszkiewicz was charged with was "Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services" under Section 125 of the ( UK ) Communications Act, 2003, which states that :
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 so much to prove as the offence of Theft, but in my library scenario I would not be guilty as I was not acting dishonestly, and I had no intent of avoiding payment of any fees.
Gregory Straszkiewicz was fined £500 for this offence - he had been caught driving around "hunting for free net connections in a private residential area" after complaints from the residents.
It would be difficult to persuade a Magistrate that such a person was not acting dishonestly, and IMHO should also have been charged with Posession of a difficult to spell and pronounce surname in a public place
So there you go
Posted from a secure PC via an Internet connection that I paid for myself
Coconutty