Please. I think my views have been a little unclear.

I am not criticising the services offered by these establishments. They are great add-ons. I have used them many times. But they are just that, add-ons. Macdonalds (for example) are not in the business of supplying seating and airconditioned comfort (also overheads) for Free WiFi users. They are in the business of selling burgers. If you choose their burger over that of the rivals because they have WiFi access, the service has been a real winner for them.

And you are quite right about the fact that using pub toilets is exactly the same. I agree 100%. But these overheads need paying. All overheads are costed into the prices of the products. If they aren't, again I have to say, bad business protocol.

Also, please dont confuse what I may have done in the past with right from wrong. If I pop into the local pub to have a quick 'Jimmy' with no intention of using the premises for which they were established, does that automatically make it right now? And I would not argue it to be right if you did it.

I also agree on the fact that WiFi will become 'Add-ons' at places on a wider basis. But I think the word Free is getting a little confused by the more appropriate term, 'Complimentary to patrons'.

But lets get back to the original point. If I left my network unsecured (for whatever reason I chose), and Bob next door decided he wanted to download large files, or worse still have My IP address logged on dodgy sites, I would be a little miffed, and I believe I would have every right to be.

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 :oh:

So there you go :ok:

Posted from a secure PC via an Internet connection that I paid for myself :rolleyes:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

OK. I am sorry I used the term theft. I was throwing it in loosely and didn't realise it would get interpreted in its biblical sense.

The original post from Squawk 2650 quite clearly states

I have a friend who has just brought a laptop and can connect to an unsecured wireless network which isn’t his so I take it that it must be someone else in his street that has one.

Thus his friend is obviously aware the connection is not being paid for out of his hard earned euros. I am apologetic that I did not point this out clearly. At all times I have assumed that the user was well aware that the connection was not theirs to flaunt.

Not being a PDA owner I am not sure of the connection procedure. If as you say:-
[I]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.[Then surely this is a major flaw in the design of PDA's. If you firstly do not know which network you are on, this could mean you may not have power over which network you connect to. Over to other PDA owners to clarify.

What is interesting is that earlier on you say it is alright if the connection was already on:-

If the wireless connection was "on" then presumably it wasn't costing the owner anything extra
to have someone connected wirelessly to their ISP -

Yet recently you state if it occurred accidentally, you could not be accussed of "Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services".

So is it alright/legal or not?

SF - Apology accepted ;)

Now calm down a bit mate - I'm jusy pointing out that the "law" isn;t always as clear as some might think.

I have never condoned any illegal or dishonest act, and never will !

... and Yes my HP Ipaq H5550 PDa does work just like that - I click the Wireless button, get a green light to say its on, then open Pocket Internet Explorer and if the wirelesss system has found a free to access connection - it uses it !

I CAN manually go into the settings and see what is connected and also what is available, but I can make a connection without knowing what that connection is ( Not that I would of course :rolleyes: )

So if I did this - with no dishonest intent on my part - as previously described, I would not be breaking any laws.

In the case of the Mr. unpronouncable that was a completely different case - and each one should be looked at in its individual context.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Damn it.

We are getting far to close to a similar hymn sheet.

I feel like one of those grumpy old men. The thrill of a little lively opposing banter about the destinction between right and wrong of a fairly benign topic.

Still, less expensive than a crack habit.