Efrem
Aug 26, 07, 11:36 am
A man has been arrested in London on suspicion of using someone else's wireless broadband internet connection without permission. The man was questioned by police as he sat on the wall outside a house in Chiswick using a laptop computer.
...
The 39-year-old man could be charged under the Communications Act for dishonestly obtaining communications services. The Act says: "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."
Full (short) article, on the Web site of a U.K.-based law firm, here. (http://www.out-law.com/page-8405)
Some of the alleged violation hinges on definitions: is it more "dishonest" to use a signal that someone knows, or reasonably ought to know, that s/he is making available to the general public? Is that more dishonest than, say, standing on the sidewalk and reading a newspaper in the light of someone's window or porch lamp?
And "intent" ... is it to avoid payment, or simply to obtain a service that would otherwise not be available at that time and place, and for which the user would pay were there any practical way to do so? Is the fact of avoiding payment, proving which would be trivial, sufficient to establish that avoiding it was the intent, or could avoiding payment be a (granted, not necessarily undesirable) side effect?
Does anyone know if any U.S jurisdictions have similar laws? Other thoughts/comments?
...
The 39-year-old man could be charged under the Communications Act for dishonestly obtaining communications services. The Act says: "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."
Full (short) article, on the Web site of a U.K.-based law firm, here. (http://www.out-law.com/page-8405)
Some of the alleged violation hinges on definitions: is it more "dishonest" to use a signal that someone knows, or reasonably ought to know, that s/he is making available to the general public? Is that more dishonest than, say, standing on the sidewalk and reading a newspaper in the light of someone's window or porch lamp?
And "intent" ... is it to avoid payment, or simply to obtain a service that would otherwise not be available at that time and place, and for which the user would pay were there any practical way to do so? Is the fact of avoiding payment, proving which would be trivial, sufficient to establish that avoiding it was the intent, or could avoiding payment be a (granted, not necessarily undesirable) side effect?
Does anyone know if any U.S jurisdictions have similar laws? Other thoughts/comments?