We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Unprotected free wifi connections - are these still subject to hacking offences?

Options
2»

Comments

  • DoaM
    DoaM Posts: 11,863 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 7 March 2017 at 2:49PM
    The accused never has to prove their innocence in a criminal matter. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    That's generally true, but not exclusively so. Many motoring offences are sent to a registered keeper, and the keeper needs to show they are not liable for the charge (e.g. by naming the driver). In other words the accused needs to prove their innocence. (If the keeper and named driver bounce the accusation between them then they'll likely BOTH be charged).
  • EdwardB
    EdwardB Posts: 462 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    Of course it is not illegal. It is a marketing stunt, usually with single sign in (using your FB, YT, TW, LI, G account)

    I have access to a platform that deploys these, it is the same as when you trade away your privacy to use facebook.

    The computer misuse act would be the law you would break IF you hacked a password of say a neighbour.

    It is one of the reasons why TVL can't sniff your network packets (not that they could figure out who owned which wifi) but their new gestapo toy DOES sniff and gather info just the same as Google does with the streetcars and Apple does with their phones.

    If somebody does not protect their wifi it is up to them, the commercial organisations mostly have a registration page but these can be bypassed by clicking a link,
    Please be nice to all MoneySavers. That’s the forum motto. Remember, the prime aim is to help provide info and resources. If you don’t like someone, their situation, their question or feel they’re intruding on ‘your board’ then please bite the bullet and think of the bigger issue. :cool::)
  • S0litaire
    S0litaire Posts: 3,535 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    The prosecution would need to convince a jury that the owner of the Internet Connection had either committed the offence themselves, or were aware of it happening (and thus an accessory). They would bring in expert witnesses that explain the jury about IP addresses, and how they can be tracked to a particular owner of an Internet connection.

    On cross examination, the defence solicitor would ask the witness if they can be 100% confident (from the IP evidence) that the accused was the one performing the action. Under oath, they would have to say no.

    The defence would bring in their own expert witness who would explain the IP address does not tie to a person, rather the network equipment making the Internet connection. They will also explain that there have been instances where the network equipment has been hacked in the past, and that someone else could have been performing the actions of which the defendant is accused. They would probably also talk about open wifi access points and make reference to a coffee shop, and explain that it is impossible to tie an internet action to one specific person.

    If you were using that as a defense it would probably be thrown out if it wasn't brought up when arrested. If it was brought up when arrested and he was still taken to court then it looks like the CPS has a "slam-dunk" case and they had all the evidence they required to prosecute:

    The Arresting Statement by a police officer:
    I am arresting you for <what ever>.

    You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.

    Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?
    Laters

    Sol

    "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
  • Strider590
    Strider590 Posts: 11,874 Forumite
    The accused never has to prove their innocence in a criminal matter. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    The prosecution would need to convince a jury that the owner of the Internet Connection had either committed the offence themselves, or were aware of it happening (and thus an accessory). They would bring in expert witnesses that explain the jury about IP addresses, and how they can be tracked to a particular owner of an Internet connection.

    On cross examination, the defence solicitor would ask the witness if they can be 100% confident (from the IP evidence) that the accused was the one performing the action. Under oath, they would have to say no.

    The defence would bring in their own expert witness who would explain the IP address does not tie to a person, rather the network equipment making the Internet connection. They will also explain that there have been instances where the network equipment has been hacked in the past, and that someone else could have been performing the actions of which the defendant is accused. They would probably also talk about open wifi access points and make reference to a coffee shop, and explain that it is impossible to tie an internet action to one specific person.

    In theory that's how it should work, but in practice being judged by a jury of one's peers is going to screw you over, because most people have absolutely no idea about this stuff, they only know the simplified and often false information they're fed by the TV/media.

    Put simply, if the prosecution can prove you know more than the jury about IT/networking, then your fighting a losing battle, your actually more likely to bury yourself by showing how much you do know.
    “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”

    <><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/
  • marvin
    marvin Posts: 2,186 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker I've been Money Tipped!
    I agree if you live next door or in a flat above it is very unlikely to be policed but don't they turn it off when the shop closes?

    Nope most of these are 02 or the cloud and they want to connect up all major public areas with free wifi. Stratford Upon Avon has public wifi Birmingham is supposed to be getting it too.
    I started with nothing and I am proud to say I still have most of it left.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.