On 28 Jul 2005 06:34:05 -0500, Mr X <Mr-X@privacy.net> wrote:

>In article <bpqdnWzcavx8L3XfRVnygA@pipex.net>, Fat Freddy's Cat
><port_26@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:dwejgzv9j1v2$.1evdvohjiu4bk$.dlg@40tude.net ...
>>>
>>> But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own,
>>> that
>>> is a different kettle of fish entirely.
>>>
>>Exactly.
>>Methinks Todal has over-reacted a little to the reported case.
>>
>>The police arent going to be banging down your door at 4am Todal.
>
>But for all Todal knows somebody could have been connecting to his
>network and trawling "dodgy" websites ...
>
>Would explain the reason why the police might want to batter his door at
>4.00am

I seem to recall some of our more dodgy bretheren across the pond have
a policy of making sure that their wi-fi network is *not* secured, and
advertising that fact, so that if any wrongdoings are detected by
their ISP they can claim that there is doubt about who did it, thereby
avoiding the legal consequences (criminal and, less likely, civil).

Is that a possibility over here ?

Cheers,

John