Modern ethical dilemna

[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.

[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.

[ratewhore]

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

Mines open, just in case...

[AtW]

There was a recent case where the owner of a WiFi connection was prosecuted for illegal access (hacking) to computer systems and claimed that it was not him, but someone using his WiFi connection.

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!

[ratewhore]

ATW is correct, the AUG for your broadband connection will hold no water in a criminal case.

The fact is, the fella in the article got caught by the police as he was connected to the network but it is very very difficult to be found just by jumping on a neighbours network.

So, although it is against the law, you'd be so difficult to trace that it would be entirely your decision as to whether you jump on or not...

[DimPrawn]

That's not the case - in case of child porn prosecution would have to prove that person in question actually had offending images on his computer: even having credit card payment may not be sufficient as it could have been cloned. This is serious criminal stuff we talking about here - the burden of prove is on the prosecution and that prove should be beyond reasonable doubt.

Having said that its obviously illegal to use someone's wireless internet connection without permission as otherwise it would be in breach of Computer Misuse act.

There was a recent case where the owner of a WiFi connection was prosecuted for illegal access (hacking) to computer systems and claimed that it was not him, but someone using his WiFi connection. Since he had not secured it, he was held liable for the computer misuse act and was found guilty.

[The Lone Gunman]

This is a bit hearsay and may be myth, but.....
Paedophiles are leaving their wireless networks unsecured and are using wireless enabled lap tops rather than their desk tops to down load their porn just so they can use the excuse taht as non tech savvy users they dont know how to secure them and that it must have been a passing paed downloading that tulip.

[Emperor Dalek]

Having said that its obviously illegal to use someone's wireless internet connection without permission as otherwise it would be in breach of Computer Misuse act.

Indeed...

A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks.

It is believed to be the first case of its kind in the UK, but with an estimated one million wi-fi users around the country, it is unlikely to be the last.

"There are a lot of implications and this could open the floodgates to many more such cases," said Phil Cracknell, chief technology officer of security firm NetSurity.

Details in this particular case are sketchy, although it is known that Gregory Straszkiewicz had "piggybacked" on a wireless broadband network of a local Ealing resident, using a laptop while sitting in his car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

[djfoot]

In other words, if you leave your connection open and someone downloads kiddy porn through your connection, YOU ARE LIABLE as the owner of the connection for any laws broken.

Does this apply to Kiddy Porn only? What about Animal Porn?

[AtW]

if you leave your connection open and someone downloads kiddy porn through your connection, YOU ARE LIABLE as the owner of the connection for any laws broken.

That's not the case - in case of child porn prosecution would have to prove that person in question actually had offending images on his computer: even having credit card payment may not be sufficient as it could have been cloned. This is serious criminal stuff we talking about here - the burden of prove is on the prosecution and that prove should be beyond reasonable doubt.

Having said that its obviously illegal to use someone's wireless internet connection without permission as otherwise it would be in breach of Computer Misuse act.

[DimPrawn]

I read that it is the legal responsibility of the person whose name the connection is in to prevent unauthorised access.

In other words, if you leave your connection open and someone downloads kiddy porn through your connection, YOU ARE LIABLE as the owner of the connection for any laws broken. The fact that someone else did it does not stop you from being prosecuted for the crime.

[Mordac]

Look at it this way, if they don't know how to set up WEP they are hardly likely to be able to find out who is occasionally borrowing their internet connection. I'm very grateful to my neighbours for leaving their Wireless routers unsecured for those irritating occasions when my own broadband goes down.

[xoggoth]

Stuck with a laptop and horrible slow GPRS modem in the week.

If I search for wireless connections I often get a few come up, from the names - Belkin etc., probably neighbour's wireless ADSL modems. One is unsecured.

On the odd occasion the signal strength seems ok, it's tempting to try and download a few porn clips from xnxx. Hmmm. But that would not be honest would it?