Chris Croughton wrote:
| On Thursday, 28 Jul 05 18:08:32 GMT, Mike
| <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
|
| > Why? He's no more liable for the actions of people who use his WiFi node
| > than an ISP is liable for the actions of its customers.
|
| See Godfrey vs. Demon.

I'm very familiar with that case. Demon was liable *only* because it
ignored a request to cease publication, *not* because its facilities were
used to publish the libel.

| > Indeed, he's acting as an ISP himself.
|
| But without anyone to pass the blame onto, no proof that it wasn't
| himself who acted illegally.

That's not how the law works (in general). The police would have to prove
that he had done the illegal act. He wouldn't have to prove that he hadn't.

Mike.