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

DoaM

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

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

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,

S0litaire

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

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?

Strider590

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

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.

marvin

Undervalued wrote: »

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.