Modern ethical dilemna

[ratewhore]

My WiFi connection is secure - better be safe than sorry!

Mines open, just in case...

[ASB]

There was a case when one guy was totally acquitted of charges because forensic evidence from his computer did not support theory that it was him doing hacking or I think child porn, effectively just because someone one from your IP accesses some illegal content does not mean you automatically guilty, there MUST be supporting forensic evidence like actual photoes recovered from your disk etc.

btw, I think the case you referring to was in the USA, not UK, where as the case I refer to was definately in the UK.

My WiFi connection is secure - better be safe than sorry!

You're both right, because you are talking about slightly different things. The computer misuse act covers unauthorised acess in general. The owner is responsible. As DP says there have been convictions.

Now if Jonny Paedo piggy backs the connection he is probably commiting an offence under the CMA but the owner of the connection is not. There is almost certainly nothing illegal about the act of access only the downloading - and that is not covered.

The connection owner could potentially get done for making iindecent images if they were in the owners cache.

[AtW]

The connection owner could potentially get done for making iindecent images if they were in the owners cache.

Yes, mere access to image on some site with IP linking back to you is not sufficient - they actually need to prove it was specifically you (could be more than one person in household you know) and for this they need forensics, ie actual images on YOUR computer. And even that may not be enough - one guy got off because he pursvuaded jury that such images were uploaded from elsewhere in a way that was inconsistent with normal browsing or something like this.