Buying SIM card in the UK

"news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
news[email protected]

[snip]

> Are these 'public' HotSpots unknown in England? (I have
> only come across slightly hot spots around coffee shops
> which you have to pay to get onto.)

Free hotspots do exist, but they're few and far between compared to the
pay ones.

> Was the guy who was done for logging into people's
> networks done for using some program to break into WEP
> enabled networks? In this detail-less story, THAT may be
> what made it illegal?

AFAIK it is the Computer Misuse Act which makes it illegal to use any
computer system (wireless or otherwise) without the owner's permission.

Ivor

---

› See More: Buying SIM card in the UK

It happens that Ivor Jones formulated :
> Free hotspots do exist, but they're few and far between compared to the pay
> ones.

How do you, the user, decide whether you are using a free hotspot, or a
badly configured access point?

On 13 Aug 2006 10:04:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>> Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:
>> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>......
>> >> Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
>> >> genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.
>> >
>> > Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?
>> >
>> > Chris
>>
>>
>> *Communications Act 2003*
>>
>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm
>>
>>
>> See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm - A recent court
>> case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months'
>> conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has
>> repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks.
>>
>
>Interesting. The relevant part of the Communications Act seems to be in
>Section 125: Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications
>services
>
> (1) 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.
>
>So it has to be *dishonestly* obtaining. I can see that if someone has
>secured their wi-fi network, then this makes it clear that they want to
>restrict access -- like locking the garden gate. If someone breaks the
>security, like picking the lock on the gate, that starts to look
>dishonest to me.
>
>But if they have not bothered to secure the network, just as if they
>had left the garden gate open, it does not seem *dishonest* to wander
>in. OK -- if the owner says you are trespassing, it is only polite to
>leave quietly. But they might just be nice people, happy to give open
>access within reason.
>
>I wonder what arguments a lawyer can think up.

Using another private individual's network that doesn't specifically
request any payment would appear to fall outside the definition of
paragraph (b) above. If no payment was being asked for there can't
have been any intent to avoid payment.

Note that terms of both paragraphs (a) AND (b) are required to have
been met for someone to be guilty of an offence, not (a) OR (b)

Chris

Chris Blunt wrote:

> On 13 Aug 2006 10:04:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>>Interesting. The relevant part of the Communications Act seems to be in
>>Section 125: Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications
>>services
>>
>> (1) 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.
....
> Using another private individual's network that doesn't specifically
> request any payment would appear to fall outside the definition of
> paragraph (b) above. If no payment was being asked for there can't
> have been any intent to avoid payment.

It depends what the scope of the word 'service' is in the legislation; it's
very likely that the person who's wireless access point Gregory
Straszkiewicz was 'illegally' using, was connected to a broadband service
that had to be paid for, and *that* is the charge he has intended to avoid
payment of. Therefore, the offence Gregory Straszkiewicz has committed is
to connect to the victim's internet connection without paying for it, and
the wireless bit is irrelevant! I could be wrong of course, as I have never
before been accused of being a lawyer.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
17:47:04 up 23 days, 23:09, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.11
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK