In article <874qa8lcmw.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray wrote:
> > The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute
> > an "invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result
> > of its owner's ignorance.
>
> But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
> account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
> is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?

I think there should be a presumption that someone else's property, be
it a physical object, access to premises, or access to a service of some
kind, is NOT offered freely to all and sundry unless there is a clear
indication that it is. The mere absence of active prevention should not
be taken as such an indication.

Rod.