On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:57:27 +0100, blah <J@sifjis.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:52:29 +0100, bigbrian <harry8611@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>>connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>>guy does exactly the same thing
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
>>
>> Its one way of spreading internet availablilty in small communities
>>where not everyone wants to invest in their own ISP account, although
>>I'm not sure whether the guys doing the "providing" are breaking the
>>T&CS of their own contract with their ISP.
>>
>>It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
>>connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised. If a wireless
>>network is wide open from a security point of view, I wonder whether
>>you could mount a defence on the basis that you assumed it was done
>>intentionally (which, as I say above does happen), and had no reason
>>to assume otherwise. As I understand it, a prosecution would have to
>>prove that you knew it *wasn't* authorised, which isn't immediately
>>obvious if the security is wide open or non-existent
>>
>>Brian
>>
>
>Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
>connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.

I assume that, while people can access his connection, he's happy that
he has sufficient security over access to his hard drives that no one
can see them and plant stuff on them.

Or did you mean the traceability of his IP address from someone access
illegal material? His public statement about the wide openness of his
connection *ought* to be a pretty effective defence, but I appreciate
it comes at the cost of "pay to play" it. He might well have been
without his PC (and his front door) for some time before he gets to
make his case

Brian