if someone uses open wifi to browse sites that contain illeagal material and the police comes to you door they will search your computers and find that none of the computers you own have been to those sites. I know that it would be stressful, inconvenient , and ,embarrassing, to say the lease but you would not get the crime on your record all your property returned

jeremy, pisek, ND

To all those who think this is all rather unnecessary - imagine someone has pinched your connection to surf illegal pages - it's YOUR door the police will come knocking on, not the thief's. Whatever the thief browses will be traced to your connection, not the thief's computer.

Ian Johnson, Christchurch, New Zealand

I believe the technical facts of WiFi connectivity are greatly confused in this debate as well as in the cited regulation in the UK. In order for anyone to connect to a WiFi network, the latter's SSID must be known to the subscriber. Routers "broadcast" this SSID to enable logon by those who do not know the SSID, or those who are too lazy to write it down. A broadcast SSID is an "invitation" to connect, and therefore cannot be compared with the open front door of a house. Using the house analogy, a broadcast SSID may be compared with a "Please enter" sign next to the front door. Now, this front door may be locked (as would happen by "securing" the WiFi network with password), but the sign remains. Anyone who does not lock the door, and who keeps the sign up clearly invites people to enter, and should not be surprised if people do.

Alex, Boston, USA

Though many comments are applaudable, most are off the mark. An IP address out on the Internet traces to the house, as well as what that person does whilst on your connection.

Though the article does not articulate, the person could have been doing illegal activity - he was obviously not arrested for reading the newspaper. There are too many free places for that.

You only "take" someone's connection like that for nefarious purposes, otherwise there are plenty of others (most on this thread) who will give theirs away for free. There's no need, so obviously there was a reason for the arrest.

For him to do this is akin to using someone's mail slot as your return address, and then you have to ask, "who's on the other side? Al-qaeda?" You get my point, and the reason they probably took the laptop to find out. It goes a long way to protecting an unsuspecting person (old maid who doesn't know better, perhaps?) from such activity.

A. Duke, London, UK

The poster who claimed this was very Labour does not know what he is talking about. This has to do with the growing police state.

If I read a newspaper by the light of someone else's household, am I misusing this part of the radio spectrum?
What this is really about is the police misusing and abusing legislation that was drafted and passed long before WiFi was even heard of. This is par for the course.
Just wait until the identity cards are introduced. The British police will make the Gestapo look like Mother Theresa.

Kevan Taylor, Hull, England

Well, I wouldn't mind. It's not like "piggy-backing" would cost me anymore for my internet connection. Of course, you could always have a secure connection, so people can't use your connection for free. The police don't represent the citizens. I agree; they should ask the homeowners whether or not they want to press charges. It's a waste of prison space.

Moose of Reason, Cranford, United States

It makes me wonder what the police's response would have been if this bloke "sitting on a garden wall" with his laptop had been mugged? And why the CPS would choose to prosecute this case.

Also, the amount of trouble I have gone to trying to get a phone line in order to get the internet in my home (owing to the incompetence of several companies who shall remain nameless) I am sorely tempted to "piggy-back" on someone else's connection. I wouldn't, because I personally would not do that without permission, but I wouldn't consider it a heinous crime, as some people seem to be suggesting.

If I left my wireless broadband unsecured, I would expect to have that exploited. As it is, I have always enabled the 128-bit WEP key and never had a problem. If only it was a dilemma I had to worry about today, rather than how long it will take to finally get a phone line installed.

Louise, Salford,

So now the notion of privacy extends to "air"? How about notifying the owner and teach him how to PROTECT his network? What about WEP, WPA, aren't they there for exactly that reason?

Dario, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I don't think that the police would have stopped the guy if he was seen to be using a PSP outside of this house. The PSP has web capabilities and also connects to wireless networks much like a notebook would. Regarding the law, wouldn't it be simple for the police to knock on the owners door and ask if they would like to press charges? For all of those sticking up for the guy, would you let him surf on your wireless connection? A MAC address isn't registered on a website when a user visits, but the hosts IP address is, so by definition the paper trail stops at the house.

Stuart Ryan, Caversham, UK

If they want to access the internet, they can damn well go to a public wi-fi spot or their own home. It is tantamount to using a homeowner's utilities without permission.

Hamburg, phil,

So, If I sit on the wall outside my OWN house, and connect to my wireless network, the police have the right to question me about what I am doing on my laptop?

What if I prefer not to say? Do they arrest me, and seize the laptop?

What If I tell them I logged onto the wireless network connection and am surfing? Would they arrest me, or would they find out who owned the network (i.e me).

I could be sitting outside a friends house, and have permission, do they check with the homeowner?

Under what law do officers have the right to find out if you are connected to a wireless netowrk on a laptop, and what powers do they have?

Can I just tell them its non of their business? Or can they seize the laptop? What if I tell them I have permission, but the home owner (say a friend of mine) is not in? What happens then?

ken, Sunderland, England

If it were that wifi would expand the boundaries of personal property beyond its real (physical) boundaries, then this would be just great. I'd like to have the invasion of public space by wifi-signals to be measured and taxed. If anybody invades my personal property with their wifi i'd like to have them arrested by police since i never agreed on their wifi upon and around me. Obviously it ain't illegal to use public aerial space to transmit wifi into for connecting to the internet if you are an owner. But it is illegal to do so in public space, but only illegal IF the wifi.router is not yours and on private property. But wait: If a router is configured to release ip-adress to any client asking for one - without notice that it is illegal - how can it be illegal, on public property?

Gerhard Meyer, Zurich, Switzerland

do what i have done and change your networks name to "free network use" will get intresting in law

geoff, chester,

I share my connection and can see no issues. We live in a free society and it's a bit like big brother turning into big daddy.

Satnam Shergill, London, UK

It is not "illegal" to use someone else's broadband any more than it would be illegal for someone to eat a slice of cake that I left on the pavement in front of my house. If I don't secure my network, by default, it must be assumed that I don't mind others using it. It is not the same as leaving your front door open and people coming in and helping themselves to your possessions. The difference is that your stuff, and your house, is deemed to be your property, regardless, unless you dispose of it . As far as I know, wireless/radio waves are not one's private property, particularly if we choose to have them beamed, unsecured, beyond the confines of our property.
By implication - can I sue householders for beaming "waves' of broadband at me as I walk past their houses?
Gregory Straszkiewicz - wherever you are - get a real lawyer and appeal.

Sarah N., London,

Arrest is one thing prosecution another sect 1 computer misuse act is about obtaining unauthorised access to computer material; if he did not access a PC or data on the LAN of the home, but only the public internet then he has not broken that section. Section 123 of Communicatiobns Act 2003 will require proving dishonest avoiding of payment for the service provided by the homeowner. That is the service of the homeowner, not the ISP. If the homeowner was not charging for his open access network then he was not avoiding payment. Could be a big waste of Tax on prosecuting a pointless case.

Steve, bournemouth,

Apparently lawmakers and the police need a refresher course on wirelesse technology. It's the free choice of the subscriber to run an open access point without encryption and password-protected logon, so that the bandwidth he is paying for anyway can be shared with others (assuming that his contract allows him to operate a wireless router). It is like leaving your day travel card at the station when you return from work for someone else to pick it up and get some more use from it. That's legal, as far as I can tell.

K Becher, London,

Of course it's theft!

The subscriber pays good money for uploaded and downloaded x number of gigabytes per month. If some wifi thief uses some of the subscriber's entitlement, it's obvious that the subscriber is being robbed!

Using the "watching TV through the window" analogy is ridiculous. These "Remote Viewers" aren't criminals, they should simply be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, then taken to a special place where they can be looked after until they get better.

E J Murray, Kerry, Ireland

Some of the branches of my apple tree reach over my garden wall & into the street.
If some apples fall onto the street will the police arrest someone for picking up these apples? Of course not.
If I wanted to 'secure' these apples I should have taken appropriate steps, e.g. pruning the tree branches to they did not extend beyond my property.

Matt, Sydney, Australia

leaving aside the inappropriate analogies (as it's more like someone watching tv through your window if you don't shut the curtains), what concerns me is that the justification seems to be that the connection could have been used for fraudulent purposes. sure, but the crime would be hacking someone's card details or joining a paedophile network. the simple act of connecting should not itself be a crime any more than owning a baseball bat is a crime. it's a bit of a judge death approach to guilt.

far more important than any of that, though, is the worrying priorities of the police. it would be easier to accept that they were "just doing their job" if they were actually doing their job. how many crimes would be prevented simply by having the police present, visible and active? and their information would be better if they weren’t actively antagonising harmless members of the community. this would be a waste of police time under any circumstances, but given the real crime blight

jem, london, uk

pip pip cheerio !!

jimmy joe, birmingham, alabama

No wonder the UK is a police state - judging from your reader's comments they like it that way. They say you get the democracy you deserve and now I believe it. May your God help you.

Mike Blackburn, Beijing, China

My say is that the homeowner is providing a public accomodation by offering an unsecured broadband connection accessible from a public right of way.

What if two unsophisticated neighbours operated unsecured Wi-Fi networks and inadvertently and unbeknownst to them used each others rather than their own? If I discovered it, could I call up the police and have my neighbor arrested for using my bandwidth?

You'll say that there is the issue of intent. Fine. But if I had failed to protect my connection and in doing so made it publicly available, does that not place as much of the burden on my shoulders for failing to take adequate steps to protect it? Moreover, doesn't failure to take affirmative action to protect an asset, which I have made publicly available, indicate my willingness to share it?!

What if I left the door to my house wide open and then broadcast by radio an invitation to the public to enter, haven't I then given license to anyone to enter at their convenience?

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

If its unsecured its fair game!

Jon, Bristol, Soms

Outrageous! If this chap had walked into the house through an open door would he have been arrested and be facing prison? Probably not. If he had turned an outside tap on and taken a drink? Nope. What about those of us who audaciously flick through an unsealed magazine in a shop? Do we face more than a just a possible chilly stare from the shopkeeper? Is that 'theft' of information? Nah. This chap had no contract or obligation to the WiFi owners and they made their WiFi available to users beyond the boundaries of their property. So the next time you find yourself nodding your head appreciatively to the rhythm of somebody’s car stereo as they wait at the lights with their windows down, block your ears…. You never know who might catch you freeloading!

Justin M Teixeira-Vaz, Tavira, Portugal

Next it'll be illegal to have someone else's light from a lightbulb in a house beam onto you. It's completely insane to say that it's illegal to pick up a radio signal, and then send one back on an unlicensed band!

James Hamilton, London,

Now I'm worried. Will I be arrested for not having a TV licence if I overhear someone's TV?

I've been living in this country for four years and I congratulated myself just the other day for not having a criminal record. I go to work, I come home. But it's really difficult to live in the UK without breaking a law.

What was that thing about Labour bringing in a new law every 13 hours?

Sam Neill, Cardiff,

How is this "dishonest" within the meaning of the law?

There was no hacking or code-breaking required. The computer located the network and requested an address from the server, so permisson was requested and granted.

There was no trespass on property - the service was available from a public place.

If I locate an unlocked tap in a public place outside my property the implication is clearly that it is available to anyone who wants to use it to take my water. If I put a box of apples outside my front gate with a sign saying "help yourself", people are free to take one.

This case is no different. A half-decent lawyer could make a case that permisson was expressly, or at least implicitly given, and there was consequently no dishonesty involved.

archie, sydney,

DHCP server of owner's router granted access and without such permission Wi-Fi connection is impossible! The owner may to go to police and dismiss a case or I am wrong?

t42, Kiev,

Setting a password is easy, and everytime the homeowner logged on, their own computer would have told them their network was unsecured. In short, the owner of the network probably didn't care whether others used it or not. Many network owners leave their WiFi open so that others can use it and it's not clear from the report whether the police checked with the householder whether he intended others to be able to use his WiFi connection before arresting this chap. The point I'm making is that it's a fair assumption for the guy outside to make, given how easy it is to secure a WiFi connection point, that the intent was to make the node publicly available - especially considering that tens of thousands of such nodes are deliberately left open for this purpose. Perhaps some of the posters here who think that somehow this equates to theft are unaware of just how many deliberately open WiFi nodes there are. Of course, this overlooks the fact that it was an 'easy' nick for the officers!

Mephistopheles, Bristol, UK

If only the parents of all the recently murdered children would stop their incessant whinging, the brave boys in blue could concentrate on the real job of nicking wifi snatchers.

David Masu, Zürich,

Most wifi default settings allow access to unsecured wireless networks in the area. The warning that you about to connect to an unsecured network is shown - which means nothing to most users,-

Open wifi is a friendly neighbouhood thing to do.

That guy should have told the police that it was none of their business what he was doing and they could have arrested him for What? As for the police well our local police go around specifyingthe height of the bushes in the local park. The man could maybe put in a counter claim that he was being assaulted by radio waves and he was just measuring their strenght.
It would be funny except they kick our doors down to get money to fund this activity.

mark hearne, leicester,

It's like putting your money into the bank and they lend it all out to someone else without your permission!

David Masu, Zürich,

Although using an unsecured wireless network doesn't hurt anyone it is unfair that one person should pay for the internet and wireless equipment whilst another gets the benefits for free.

It is also not necessarily true that nobody is hurt by it. Nowadays many internet service providers have a fair usage policy which entitles them to reduce your bandwidth or to disconnect you. If you've got someone sitting outside your house downloading full length movies then that will rapidly use up your bandwidth allowance.

Hopefully this will act as a deterrent. Granted, being arrested for the offense may seem harsh but what alternative is there? Personally I would say that a custodial sentence of any length is way over the top for an offense of this nature. I believe a fine will suffice for this offense.

James Clutton, Crewe, England

"I left my wireless unprotected for years in order to let others use it if they needed"?

so, you admit that you are an accessory? expect a knock on the door shortly! :0)

this story smacks of idiocy from start to finish. this is an absolute waste of police time, particularly when teenagers roam the streets of chiswick smashing car windows, painting obscenities on the road and breaking playground rides. anyone who leaves his broadband connection open is a fool. and anyone who risks sitting on a wall with his laptop is an even bigger fool. this man should count himself lucky to have got away with a fine and not had his laptop stolen (a crime for which we can guess the pathetic punishment... not that they'd ever catch the perpetrator).

and john... dubai is hardly crime-free. sure, the level of reported crime is low, but then abusing your housemaid, for example, isn't considered a crime.

jem, london, uk

For Mr. Plod this is an easy point towards their targets.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

So what was stolen exactly? The subscriber still had his service. You don't usually pay by usage now anyway.

So, if I stand on the pavement and sniff someone's garden flowers at their wall, by analogy I am presumably stealing the scent which is being wafted out now. Similarly, if someone chose to roll a carpet right out to the street and I then walked over it, I'd presumably be stealing the use of their carpet henceforth.

What a bizarre decision to arrest someone - as opposed to perhaps advising the owner that they are broadcasting to passersby and that they might want to do something about it for the future if they were bothered.

AlistairW, Glasgow,

Karen,

Just about any of the top ten returns on a Google search for "securing wifi networks" give relatively jargon free instructions on how to set up a level of security that will defeat this kind of "stealing". Given the ease of doing this it's not unreasonable to assume that any unsecured networks are intentionally left open, as Andy's used to be.

Graham, Manchester,

I agree with most pple on this post and its a complete waste of police time. The society we live in today has completely lost control of all sanity. Like alot of pple have said here there are more guns and knives taking lives, more repeat offenders and not to talk of terrorism. where are the police whe groups of 30 are roaming the streets causing harvoc? and when anyone is prosecuted they are put in 'prison' if there is any space or just tagged and let off. Prison is for rehabilitating and punishing not a holiday camp. if you cant be bothered to protect ur connection after the facilities are readily available then u deserve to have ur connection used. Lets face it there is no deterent nowadays from commiting serious crimes. n pls stop the comparism with silly things like cars n ipods they are worlds apart . An ipod is an object while wifi uses airwaves. it shows the level of thinking in our society today which is a serious problem. crime= adequate punishment, disciplin= stable society

Adegbola, London, UK

Ha, people shouldn't have wireless networks unless they know how to use them. If they can't secure them, get wires!

Not that I condone the piggy-backers, but I think police work should be focused a little more on gun crime and the fact that every other week another kid dies, or murderers are allowed to stay in the country or whatever next weeks failure to britains citizens is.

Fix the country ffs!

A Dean, Manchester, UK

Technically it would appear that if the connection is not encrypted that it becomes a public hot stop. Unless the connection was 'hacked' I personally don't see the wrong doing as many a laptop automatically connect to open wi fi

James, Burnley, England

If you are stupid enought to leave your wired connection un secure and unprotected in anyway then you are totaly to blame and are in return excepting for other people to access your internet and should pay any expences if people use your connection!

if you can pick up an unprotected signal you should be allowed to use it there are many free wierless hotspots that are legal.

hacking in is a totaly different case coz that is like kicking down a front door to take the tv! no incription cannot be compared to just walking in a front door to take the tv its totaly different. u are broadcasting your signal. if you had a web site would you put say your songs you had written on it enable them to be freely down loaded when people are meant to be paying for it!!! and put the pay section seperatly no you would protect it so only thoes who pay can get them.!!!

protect your internet so only thoes who pay can get it ie your household or friends!!!

lewis reford, uk oxford,

This guy was obviously 'trawling' for open access points to take advantage of free Internet access, but this and the previous Straszkiewicz case sets a dangerous precedent.

Most operating systems, and increasingly smartphones, will attempt to connect to whatever access points are available and will make use of unsecured ones if they are all that is available.

I've worked in the infosec industry for getting on twelve years and the cluelessness of the police (even within the National High Tech Crime Unit, or the Serious and Organised Crime Unit as it is now a part of), the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary is shocking.

Arresting and prosecuting a few people and not the right way forward. Crime prevention officers need to inform the public just like they do about using mobile phones and MP3 players on the tube or leaving valuables in cars. Install Kismet on a laptop and drive around London, be worried.

Dr James Blake, London, United Kingdom

This is hardly the same thing as a stolen car. Its more like a video game. If they steal your videogame system its wrong. If they use it, what harm is done. Would you have someone arrested for playing a game on your PS3 without asking? If its really a problem for the owner then they should be smart enough to secure it. Cops don't have more important crimes to take care of?

mike, OAKLAND, USA

Absolute rubbish!
The person with the wifi connection is BROADCASTING that service to all nearby.
Next -
If you look at a tv program through a window of someone elses house you will be arrested for not having a licence to view!
If someone plays music too loudly and you listen to it - you will be arrested for evesdropping and taking advantage of equipment/elecricity that you have not paid for!

john, manchester,

Theft is theft so well done to the Police for pursuing this. Many subscribers have a limit to how much data they can download in a month and so if someone else is using this they are stealing.

Secure server or not, there is no excuse for illegal use of a service to which you are not entitled.

Gary Sutherland, Carradale, UK

I think the police should have spoken to the owner of the connection and if he intentionally left the wireless unsecure then there is no case because he is paying for it. However, the owner does have the right to take action. There was no 'forced entry' .

Hussain, Staines ,

I have an unsecured wireless connection which I am perfectly happy for anyone to piggyback on it. If I were not I would secure it. The police might want to spend time on the more serious problems of the UK.

Brian , Chicago, IL

Ridiculous.
The "law" need clarifying, and the police should have more important things to do.
Who is stealing what?

J B Craig, Plymouth,

What a waste of public money and police effort. Nobody suffered any loss or damage and it appears to have been prompted by action from a couple of officers who would do better to catch some real criminals rather than make this kind of trivial and easy arrest. If someone was deliberately hacking into a network to cause harm that's a different matter - but this appears to be a misuse of the Computer Misuse Act. I hope the court throw it out and tell DC Mark Roberts to stop wasting police time.

Mike, London,

"Superior hacker." Give it a rest. Every time I boot my laptop it offers me a selection of no less than 8 or 9 wi-fi access points to choose from; around 20 percent of these are 'open' or unsecured, some even labelled as such. I believe one is a community church hall around the corner that offers an open-door policy on their connection for local residents. Another common one in my list is the local college.

And yes, I have, in the past, connected to these momentarily, just because the service is there. Windows alerts you with no legal disclaimer when you connect to a network, so for a novice home user, unwittingly connecting to the wrong gateway could be a common mishap. Granted, the chap on the wall was blatant. So what?

This is a pathetic attempt at didactic policing. Especially for a country shrouded in far more sinister criminal activities. Again, shame on our legal system.

Shelley, Kent,

Have to agree with Scott on this one. If people don't secure their connection (any service provider would explain how to do his) then they are broadcasting to the public domain. I personally have not secured my connection because I have no sensitive data stored on my machines, all of my data is backed up and if someone wants to park outside my house and use my internet connection then thats fine by me! What a waste of police time. I would be most outraged if this man gets sent to prison. Unfortunately though the CPS seems to take some kind of sadistic pleasure in locking up people who are no threat to the public and letting killers walk free after a couple of years. Surely this should be a matter for the civil courts anyway?!

Chris, Abingdon, England

If I remember correctly, teenagers are destroying this country with gun/knife crime and anti-social behaviour, and the police feel it neccessary to tackle this instead? No wonder the number of people leaving the UK has risen.

Dino, London,

I'm quite surprised at how many stingey people on here would apparently consider it 'theft' if someone used their internet connection wirelessly. You know, we're living in a society!

Adam Neilson, Birmingham,

Some cities in the USA have begun having wi-fi available to any and all which I like and use only when I'm not accessing my confidential information. Personally, our home wi-fi is password protected. I find this similar to locking the doors of my home and take it to be part of my responsibilty.

C. Dolezal, Grand Junction , Colorado USA

It's not like leaving your car door open and a thief stealing it. Actually, it's more like leaving your car window down with the music on, and then the police arrest anyone who listens to it. Signal is not a physical property. Leaving it open implies that you don't care if people use it. In all router instructions, you are told to secure your network to prevent unauthorized access. RTFM.

John Greene, Little Rock, AR

I think the police should crack down--what if this guy was a pedophile, using this unsecured connection to prey on your son's and daughter's? Or a thief, trying to hack into your personal info? Or selling drugs or guns to UK teens? Or, in a worst-case-scenario, a terrorist?

These people probably aren't doing this as a hobby, or because they're cheap, I'm thinking. If they can afford a laptop, they surely can afford a connection.

How many of the persons who've commented here, actually took the time, after reading the article to actually t-h-i-n-k about that? I say, good job, to the police.

As for homeowners--yes, they should be urged to do a secure connection, I agree.

Nancy, upstate, NY USA

This case only illustrates that some people have no idea about technology. They go to PC World and buy a wireless router, only to install it without any form of protection. There's all this hassle over social networking information security, and yet the more serious issue of people blindly allowing access to their home network and Internet connection goes largely un-noticed. I think it far more likely that children will share their personal photos and documents on a home network than on a social networking site, yet parents don't see the dangers leaving them unprotected. We need a serious shake up of the education system; young and old. Everyone needs to realise that the Internet is happening, and there are rules for it just as there are rules for the real world. You'd put a lock on your door, so why not do the same for your network?

Leechio, Rochester, Kent

who to blame for all this its simple those people who do not secure and lock there network because if it was locked no one will be able to access it in the first place unsecured wireless network will always be visted by strangers unless its secured
so don,t blame them

alen, dudley,

So the man caught using someone else's wi-fi connection was busted by a couple of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).

Meanwhile, a report this week has revealed that our nation's 13,000-plus PCSOs (employed at a total cost of more than £200 million per year) detect, on average, one crime every six years.

So no doubt those officers will be able to rest on their laurels for a bit. And it's nice to see our council taxes being put to such good use. Kids get shot in the street, but at least our wi-fi is safe.

Alex D, Southampton, UK

At £17 a month that is less than 3p an hour. would you arrest someone for eating a grape in the supermarket or a mushroom? You might tick them off . But to arest and fine them £500 and give them a criminal record that would seriosly afect thier employabillity over 3 pence.

Tony Seaton, southampton, uk

Yes I think it should be illigal for the internet connection to be unsecured. It's not rocket science, takes just a few sec to add encryption. I bet Jason Bradbury from The Gadget show has stopped his free wi-fi connection he said anyone could use !

Dave, Brighton,

A complete waste of police time, I am surprised the police even noticed him but unlucky for him.

If you leave your door open and get squatters in then they have rights until such time they are convicted, I know not everyone of computer literate but care is needed by the indivduals.

Lets face it if he was looking to do harm he would not be sitting on the wall but hid away.

It doesnt surprise me that there are so many serious crimes when the police can have a very easy time of it nicking people for crimes that are not going to benefit the public interest.

They should be looking out for muggers there are enough of them but that would take hard work ! jp

JP, london, uk

leaving aside the inappropriate analogies (as it's more like someone watching tv through your window if you don't shut the curtains), what concerns me is that the justification seems to be that the connection could have been used for fraudulent purpose. sure, but the crime would be hacking someone's card details or joining a paedophile network. the simple act of connecting should not itself be a crime. it's a bit of a judge death approach to guilt.

far more important than any of that, though, is the worrying priorities of the police. it would be easier to accept that they were "just doing their job" if they were actually doing their job. how many crimes would be prevented simply by having the police present, visible and active? and their information would be better if they were actively antagonising harmless members of the community. this would be a waste of police time under any circumstances, but given the real crime blighting lives... scandalous.

jem, london, uk

> Paul F, Esher
More like they walked in the front & watched your tv (which was already on)
Maybe they switched channels without checking if it was pay per view
Also there are people who deliberately leave their tv's on, so passing people can watch
Maybe wrong, but like stealing your tv???

imma, york, uk

An absolute joke.
A sick joke though, and indicative of police priorities today.
A gang of feral youths kicking a defenceless victim to death?
"Sorry sir, can't come out - too busy."
A non-threatening man with a laptop using someone's WiFi bandwidth?
"We'll be there right away!"

Jim Carr, UK,

I've just come back from a week in Polperro which is a beautiful fishing village in Cornwall.

As the only payable WI-FI was available only from 9:00 I used to go for my morning walk to find an unsecured connection and "borrow" it for a few minutes to download my mail.

This was done while most residents were asleep but when they ralised what I was doing they did get pretty 'umpy - in fact my best connection just turned their router off!

It's very simple, who is the criminal? Me for using a connection that was dormant and paid for and not causing anyone any inconvenience or cost? Or the kind lady that threatened to throw water over me and my laptop?

They say the law can be an ass!

Paul, London,

People should secure there systems from these sort of things happening but also I agree it is theiving. But people should be made aware that there responable for there own networks and whats on them. But does this mean when big wigs like Sony put spyware on your home PC's you can also sue them ??? Well it leaves it open to disscusion. So I agree Jon.

Chixtikka, Manchester,

Would you leave your car with doors open, engine running? You'd rather lock it, so why not doing the same with your WiFi? Do not invite people to commit such a severe and threatening crime, (accidentally) stealing your connection...

Daniel, London,

At first i thought this was silly but the more i think about it the more right the police are. I would not like a pervert using my link to download their rubbish. As for the arguement that because the link was not encrypted then its ok to use ,is rubbish. Some days i may leave a door to my house unlocked or my car, does this then mean that these are free to be taken, I think not. Those that say these are not the same must have a dubious moral compass as stealing is stealing. Just because we fail to protect something does not mean it is morally acceptable for someone to steal it.

Maybe these people who say its ok would think again if the police called at their door to confiscate all their equipment as illegal porn had been downloaded from their link

Robert Miles F-H., Southend,

This seems to be an utterly ridiculous case. Imagine that you are in an office using your own wireless with an access point in aother room which is through a wall. A resident across the road turns on their unsecured access point which is in line of site through nothing but a couple of panes of glass. Microsoft Windows detects a stronger signal than the one that you are using and so switches to the new signal without you noticing. You are now guilty of stealing their bandwidth and have also lost the comms security (firewalls etc) that you have around your own access point which into the bargain leaves you vulnerable. In this instance you are now the guilty one, whereas it should be the resident across the road who has broadcast into your office and compromised your security.

Tom Mathews, Glasgow,

i think this is stupid, what the police have done

however, there are lots of WIFI networks out there that are not configured in any way what so ever.

I.E. joe bloggs buy's the wifi router, gets home plugs it all up and its works for him. He has internet all working. So he doesn't read the supplied manual or configure any aspect of the router. Hence its unsecured.

An example of an unsecurred network is a name like "default WYRG-51". Complete lack of setting up on the owners side.

My PDA (which by default connects to "any" network) can and has shown at times names like this.
Does this make anyone with a PDA (with WIFI) is a criminal ?

I don't think it matters what is printed in the manual, if people don't read the manuals, then theres a good chance theres going to be alot of unsecure networks out there.

Richard, London, u.k.

What are the chances that you could walk down the same street today and pick up some open networks? Pretty high I reckon.

So rather than making a fuss about this arrest, the Times, the Met Police et al should publish a guide how to secure your WIFI for non-techies. Don't just highlight the problem without giving a solution.

Richcolour, London,

It really isn't that hard to secure a wireless network..if someone manages to use the wi-fi connection because there's no protection on it, it's your own fault. I don't think it should be illegal to use an unprotected network seeing as there is no password barrier being hacked.

I mean, jeez..I'm only 18 and I know that I need to and how to protect my wi-fi.

Benjamin, Godalming, Surrey

It's not really someone like walking into your unlocked house and taking money left in view. Surely it's closer to you going into the street and sprinkling pennies all around, then disappearing from the scene. You can hardly be surprised if people help themselves even though it would be theft technically.

The radio signal goes outside your property boundary, so if you want to keep it to yourself you need to secure it in a relevant way, that is encrypt it.

The prosecution seems to be a total misapplication of the law from a policeman who should have better things to do.

Brian, Availles-Limouzine, France

What a joke. *If* the cheeky free wi fi user is stealing credit card info or being shady then of course bust him for that. If he's reading Heat magazine online on someones deliberately unprotected wireless isn't that just like picking up a discarded newspaper on the train?

So with these laws, if a guest in my house switches on my mac and the machine invites them to join an unprotected wifi network (that is, after all, being beamed into my house without my consent) and they click 'yes', our government thinks they deserve 6 months in prison?

The intention is indeed to control us, but their ignorance of how technology works makes our government and police laughable.

Lash Devil, London,

Perhaps they should get the West Midlands police in on this to investigate why the owner didn't secure his network connection. There were 2 serious crimes committed here.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

Glad to see all car thefts, muggings, burglaries, illegal immigrants and litter louts have been sorted out in Chiswick, leaving the Police with time on their hands to deal with this kind of thing.

When so many law-abiding citizens are losing respect for the police, surely they must see that they are developing an image problem even amongst their natural supporters. If I was a chief constable I would be gutted to see this kind of coverage, yet it turns up in papers week after week. My favourite was sending 8 officers to get Chris Tarrant after he threw a napkin at some obnoxious git in a restaurant.

If I were chief constable I would put the word out: the next case like this I see in the papers, the officer responsible is sacked. It's not just common sense that is required by police, it's self control.

Martin , Birmingham,

As I see it the laptop user hasn't broken any laws because he had effectively been given permission to use the wireless connection simply by asking for a connection and being given one. In establishing a connection the laptop would have requested an IP address and in this case the DHCP server on the wireless router has duly obliged . Effectively...May I use your wireless connection? Yes you may. Here's an IP address you can use.

On the other hand if the router owner had taken steps to secure the wireless router (WEP, WPA, etc) and this had been hacked then this is quite clearly an offence.

Dave, Bracknell, UK

It is the responsibility of the Wi-Fi connection point owner to secure the connection.
If i leave the door to my house open, and i get robbed, it is my fault.

Kambiz Shahri, Pretoria, South Africa, Gauteng

This is PC gone mad!

Ivor Spital, Chelmsford,

I assume people are sharing of free will if they leave their networks open. The air is, after all, free.
Secure your WLAN connection if you want keep it for yourself.

Andrew, Torquay, Devon

IF A WiFi network is left open it should be considered common access and provided that the users intensions are not malicious whats the problem ???
PC Plod grow up !!!

Mike, CORBY, NORTHANTS

This is reasonably serious enough issue... but hard to tell who is at fault.
Logging onto someone else's network is as good as getting the network owner's identity on the internet. So any wrong doing can be tracked to the wifi owner.
Again, many a equipment may try "automatically" login onto an open wifi... who is at fault ? not the user certainly.
I think most responsibility lies with the wifi owner, KNOW what broil you are onto when setting this up.... get educated...
ISPs should also bear part of the responsibility for imparting this education...
As far as police, ... dont they have better things to do... dont invent new crimes...

Ron, Hounslow, UK

Shame,

They should force encryption on poor people, who pay per download, and leave us who choose to, to share our connection with others.

It is hardly noticable, when someone is connected, and it will be the only way the web will become wireless for all.

With all the things the law is failing to do, anyone who can use a computer, legally,, will leave England soon anyway!!

Mark, London, UK

You can go to prison for 6 months for this which although dishonest, physically hurts no one. The paedophile who admitted abusing babies and children for years walks free from court yesterday. Say no more.

Claire, London,

So if one frequents an internet cafe and connects to the wrong signal one is committing a crime!
Another bizarre feature of UK life

Neddt, Thames Ditton,

I think I'd rather the police do something useful with their time and our money. What has actually been stolen, what harm has been done? If the owner of the wifi is daft enough not to encrypt his connection then tough. Still as long as the police are meeting their targets we can all feel much more secure.

Bob Reeve, Brighton,

why did the chap even bother to talk to the police? If they want to arrest to arrest him let them do it. They have to prove things, in general anyone would be well-advised to stay silent and only answer written police questions after consulting a lawyer

Carlos Kleiber, London,

Chris, Brisbane, Australia

Actually if your front door is open I can walk in yes, as I am not breaking and entering, same with your insurance, you won't be insured, if you ask me to leave legally I have to though, thanks

Adam Webb, MK, UK

Suppose I sit on a wall and read an A to Z using the light from someone's porch lamp, is that also a crime?

Geoff Boyes, Teddington, UK

I agree - police still looking for soft touches to boost their arrest records - just like they do motorist.
Then people wonder why so many teenagers are dying

Jeremy, Thatcham,

It is a stupid act. If you don't want someone to piggy-back then they should secure their connctions.

Rovert, PH, Nigeria

how pathetic ; personally when my router came already encrypted I removed it so that anyone could log on if passing by
if someone throws something away and you take it , is this theft ?
the law on this should be quite clear ; if someone encrypts access and you hack in , that should be an offence ; if it is left as open access , it is not
of course the real pressure behind this is from the internet providers ...everyone must pay separately for our services ...as many times as possible!
what is needed in the uk for maximum efficency is instant access everywhere , people who leave open access are contributing to this
if you like , why not a compulsory FON type system . all routers to have some encrypted bandwidth and some open access ?

colin grayson, london,

this week a paedophile with 23 convictions against him does no jail time because he has 'reformed' (no consideration for the victims) and in Scotland only 4% of rape charges result in conviction but someone 'hitch-hiking' a wireless connection could do 6 months and be charged £500. money over all else in this country. absolutely ludicrous.

daisy, london,

How is one supposed to determine if you are allowed to access an open wireless network? Some laptops are configured to seek and automatically connect to open networks. If someone is actively broadcasting their connection to the outside world with no security, they are effectively inviting people to use it., as this is what it is designed for.

What a waste of police time and taxpayers money.

iTard, christchurch, dorset

Eric from harrogate makes me wonder just how many people out there have internet access and wireless APs but are not even vaguely aware that they are sharing the service with whoever passes by.

I'm reminded of the recent scare over wifi in schools. Panicky parents worried about their childrens' exposure to radio signals measured in milliwatts - forgetting (I assume) that TV and Radio are transmitted in megawatts. Do they know how many wifi signals they have in their homes? If I walk around my sixth floor flat I find fifteen different SSIDs.

Mark, London,

This law is flawed in that it amounts to entrapment. For novice users, whose laptop may connect automatically to any open Wi-Fi network, it's punishing the wrong novice user. The Computer Misuse Act defines hacking as a deliberate action to subvert or gain access to a restricted electronic service.

If the weak argument of ignorance as complicity is applied, then it would be the owner of the insecure Wi-Fi network (that is broadcasting it's SSID as an open invitation) that is soliciting computer misuse by ensnaring unwitting users and potentially logging all their usage. Clearly, this doesn't make much sense either, since an intentional act of hacking would be hard to find in both cases, making the law a waste of time to enforce. Who says the police waste our taxes?

Liam, London, UK

This whole sorry matter encapsulates why I left Britain 12 yrs ago. You're living in a police state..... I could go on...

A Pondlife, France,

Surely the offence would depend on if he is within the homeowners borders, he was sat on the persons wall and using their broadband so he was commiting an offence.

If however he was sat 20 feet away in public property away from the persons house, then the person who is broadcasting their open network into public space should be to blame for letting this happen in the first place (not saying this should be an offence but they should be held responsible).

Daniel, Gloucester,

If someones front door was open, would you walk in and make yourself a coffee?

Dave, isle of man,

The point is not if the broadband user is bothered, or if he never secured the connection, but the fact that the man sitting on the wall abused the homeowners service. The homeowner may not know about the security, but the laptop user was savvy enough.
Too many people take advantage of these lapses, and they do it regularly, so why not arrest them? The laptop user has enough money to buy a computer, and a wirless connection, so why not subscribe as well, bring down the cost for everyone? Or did he steal those as well?

Jack, London, UK

Somebody could hook up to your internet connection and use it to send malicious spam, download child porn or any other nasty purpose.

All traceable to YOUR ISP. My internet is as secure as I can possibly make it.

Joe Boyle, Birmingham, UK

WiFi BROADBAND FOR 33.3% ONLY !!!!! Most WiFi pcs and laptops are capable of limiting access to personal files from other users such as children of the family, by locking them behind a password. Now, does the law/contract prevent me from offering access to my WiFi connection to each of my neighbours, and thus share the cost? How is my ISP able to know that some of the computers on my network are not physically located within my four walls, when I know that my signal is sufficiently strong to be accessed up to 50 metres from my secured router. Indeed, I recently "lent" my wifi access to my neighbour but one, when he had a short term problem with his usual ISP. Was I breaking the law?
Perhaps this could work with such as Sky as well? = good to share, as advised when taking a bath during a period of drought.

Keith R. Jones, Nottingham,

It's strange that some people who commented here are hitting on the police. This guy was sitting on a garden wall with his laptop. The police questioned him, found him using the homeowner's unsecured network, most probably without his consent, so arrested this suspicious guy. I think the police were just doing the right thing. The severity of the charge is probably debatable.

As for pppl who "open" their wireless network intentionally to let people use it, the question is whether they are willing to be responsible for what get's out from their network. If they are willing to take that risk then fair enough. But for this case I think the homeowner most likely does not condone ppl, like this guy who sat on his garden wall, using his wireless network, although it's "open". So I'm glad that the police took this matter into their own hands for the time being to make ppl aware that using ppl's wireless network is unlawful, until a better implementation is put in place, that involves vendors

arctanck, Reading,

I suppose its the same idiots that use unsecured wireless networks at home who also don't think they need virus protection. Why not make it law that home wireless networks must be secure (use anti-terrorism legislation, Osama may be prowling outside with a lappie) otherwise a penalty will be incurred.

Malc, Istanbul, Turkey

Glad to see that most people writing here have some common sense - nothing was stolen, no harm was done - I wonder if the wireless lan in question has now been secured?

Chris, Bognor Regis,

If he was "borrowing" it without permission, then it is theft. The service is being paid for by the customer regardless to the limited / unlimited use of it. Nonetheless, it seems an overly harsh stance by the police, considering what the nature of the offence was. A slap on the wrist for "purposefully" using something that did belong would have been fair for a first time offender. After all, if teenage thugs can disturb local residents all night long making their lives a living hell and recieve an ASBO, then why does this guy get collared with such rough justice? The point of securing the connection is immaterial. Yes they should have done so, but didn't. It doesn't mean it is open for anyone to abuse.

James Maycock, Bromley, Kent

This is not a waste of time, if you take or use something that you are not supposed to then you are a thief, pure and simlpe. Just because you know something is vulerable does not give anyone the right to use and abuse it.

syed, ipswich,

Working for an Internet Service Provider myself, I find this story a complete joke!
It is common sense that a wireless connection is a radio signal that can be picked up by anyone in the area... If you have decided NOT to secure it then it your own personal choice to allow others access to the connection.

People who are stupid enough to leave a wireless connection unsecured when they would be bothered about others using it... well, lets say it's kind of hard to feel sorry for them isn't it? It dosn't take much to set a wireless access key.

A free wireless access point and a private unsecured wireless access point are very hard to tell apart in most cases.

The chap who got arrested, in my opinion is perfectly in the right - and at least he knows the basics of the technology he is using!!!. The owners of the connection, clearly are either the sharing types or (more likely) too stupid to be using this technology. There should be a basic Iknowledge exam before people buy computers.

Dave, Plymouth, Devon

re Karen, Manchester

typical househoulder expecting people to know how to secure their house. If builders and insurance providers cut the gobbledygook and fitted or made it easy to fit non-breakable/pickable doors and windows on houses stealing from them would not happen

eckythump, Salisbury, UK

I see that the concensus appears to be "if it's on show, it's mine" - how foolish.

Think on this for a second: If a person "borrows" your Wi-Fi broadband for nefarious means (downloading child pornography, pirated software, bank fraud etc.) then have a guess whose IP address will be used as an excuse to break down their front door?

It's theft, plain and simple, and to defend oneself by saying "I only took a little" is no defence at all.

Geoff, Stonehouse, UK

cops go catch some badies

tom irving, bristol,

It should be added that most likely he also stole light to see, radiated from the familys outdoor lamp or a neighbour's lightpole.

Police deserves a safe working environment too.

:-)

Trond, Norway,

I reckon if the bloke in the house is annoyed and wants to press charges then that's at least something. Otherwise it's just policemen showing how much spare time they've got on their hands.

jay, london, london

is there anyone that can ensure the police are allowed to focus on what really matters?

or are we really convinced that obliging them to use their time as thus will make the UK a safer and better place..

what's going wrong england?

ernest, london,

I think we should not overdrive this case. If you need to secure your wi-fi do it or ask someone who is skilled in doing it. Otherwise you have to accept that others use your "public service". Maybe Router sellers should warn customers (something like a writing you find on sigarette packs) not to "public" their networks to anyone as data stealing and illegal downloading tracked back to the owner could lead to trouble and he or she didn't know about the abuse of their connection.

Andreas Ahlen, Ancona / Italy, Italy

Leaving your wireless network unsecured is practically an invitation for others to logon. WiFi signals broadcast over air unsecured is virtually an offering. In fact a number of countries/cities offer free open to air WiFi access. Now all of a sudden I have to distinguish for you what your intentions are when you broadcast out an open network.
Noone has hacked a network, which clearly is wrong. This is not the same as using a car that is left unlocked. You've clearly shoved this signal in my face over a radio band, where I am entitled to access, and therein lies the difference.

Mikios, Hong Kong, China

I am bewildered.

If a user installs an unsecured wireless network in their home, and has the ability to connect to it and browse the internet without any configuration on their own part. Surely they must realise that their connection is not secure?

How would a roaming user differentiate between free wireless hotspots and a wireless network that has been left unsecured through mismanagement? Both Straszkiewicz and "A Man" should have got better legal representation. I'm sure someone will win this in the future and these cases will be overturned.

Anyone who can freely log onto a wireless network through negligence of the user administering the wireless network surely cannot be punished? Theft of service? Sounds like a weak prosecution case to me...

Phil, England,

It's essentially stealing, no if's or but's.

That internet connection does NOT belong to you, so why think otherwise?

If you saw a car with the doors open would you take it and not expect to be charged with theft if you're caught?

Mr, london,

Detective Constable Mark Roberts??? Is that the same Mark Roberts that regularly streaks at sporting events??!!

David John, Stafford, Staffordshire

People who have wi-fi broadband must learn to secure it. It's like leaving your car out-side with doors unlocked and keys inserted, then complaining about it being stolen.

You can 'hide' your wireless network by hiding your SSID. Your SSID works like a password, so only people that know your SSID can access the network

Mohammed, London, UK

"So British - so sad. Here in the US there are many people who leave their wifi open and free for others to use. "

The US always seems to be defending the rights of (rich) individuals over the rights of any kind of community. And unfortunately that is what we are catching from them. Be free do whatever you want. A complete lack of public discipline. Which is why nobody ever walks anywhere in the USA because they are all too scared of these "free" individuals. Funny what "freedom" democracy gives you.

I want less freedom of religious and personal expression outdoors frankly. Do what you want in your own home without causing harm but in the community obey all laws and keep your kids under control.

Its simple to me. If this guy had been doing it in his own home who cares. But you want to walk around the streets breaking laws you need to be fined or locked up. No exceptions.

Mike, Oxford, UK

OMIGOD John I've seen some witless analogies before but this takes the biscuit there is NO comparison between driving around in someone's car - even WITH the owners permission let alone without - when compared to this. what is the affect of this heinous crime? a reduction in bandwith? whoop dee whoo, how awful is that? I can't believe that plod is allowed to waste resourcces on triviality such as this shirley there are more pressing concerns for the Met to be chasing after. Looks to me like this is the Metropolitan Police's "commuter "crime units attempt to justify it's existence. And by the way what on earth is a "Computer Misuse Act"?! how many more ways to make people criminals will this nannying big brother government invent for gawds sake???

Aidan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

You've got kids being murdered on the streets - perhaps Police time would be better spent there?

BC, Tauranga, NZ

This is a typical example of the police and lawmakers not understanding wifi.
I have two wifi connections at home - one for work and one for family use. My family connection is secured in three ways:

Firstly, I don't broadcast the SSID - this means that nobody knows it's there! Secondly, I used a WEP code - this means that if somebody did know it was there they couldn't use it without knowing the code. Thirdly I use nominated MACs - this means that even if somebody found out it was there, knew the SSID and WEP they still couldn't connect unless I put listed their computer's MAC code into my router. On my work connection I have decided to implement no such protection. It is wireless and if people want to use it then so be it.

Wifi is designed to be usable - hence public wifi networks. A computer user can't know whether an available wifi network is a public network or not so there is no crime. Otherwise, could I sue my neighbour for sending his wifi signals into my property?

Gavin, Staffordshire, England

Anyone without enough nouce to put a password on there wi-fi should understand how someone with a similar lack of knowledge could end up being arrested for accidentaly logging on to an unsecured network.

Glad there are still some people out there promoting the community aspect of the net.
What if the resident concerned wasnt even at home or his computer was turned off? hardly theft ("taking with the intent of permenantly depriving" or something similar).
what if the guy needed to look up an address or directions on google maps?
Surely only the most selfish minded of people are in favour of this 'law'.

Arun, London,

I agree fully with Jim Carr. A properly set-up, protected Wireless LAN will not be at risk from this kind of 'theft'. Whilst there ought to be legislation against such 'offences', this reaction is entirely disproportionate to the 'crime.

I cannot get the Police to monitor speeding in our street until a child is killed, but they will happily spend time filing and processing this?

Also, the legal system and Magistrates/Judges especially need to catch up with the way the internet can be abused criminally, my hunch is that they are either hopelessly confused or very much out-of-date.

Jesse H, York,

Nash, it's theft. Theft of money. A lot of people have limits on their broadband use and are charged if they go above it. Someone illegally using your broadband connection can cost you money. So even though he wasn't physically burgling someone, he was still stealing, and the police were right to arrest him. It's "real" policing.

starling, Lancaster,

John Buntling,

You have missed the point, nobody is borrowing anything, your analogy makes so sense.

What makes more sense is if on your TV you suddenly started getting Sky Sports for free, you have got no idea where the sgnal is coming from or how on earth Sky made the mistake but it is there. Would you watch it (okay you may not be a sports fan, but maybe movies or documentarys etc..)

Would you think it fair to arrest someone who chose to carry on watching it and got caught? Is this really theft?

This is a much better analogy.

Gary Murphy, Brisbane, QLD

What is this cop saying. Reading the guy's PC yes, but not using his wireless isolating router out to his ISP? Like bugging phone calls vs dialling out a [free] call. What if I tap my neighbour's TV aerial wire. Or listen to his pay-per-view Sky Sport outside his house. Or stand where I can see his telly. Or take my remote, stand on the street, and turn down his volume.Or do all this not from the street but from my house next door. Or through black windows of my legally parked car.

The use of notices, locks, doors, ropes etc. to say no is so commonplace anything we now see in public space [obviously not in a shop] without such a marker, we assume is free to take: newspapers, food samples, plastic bags, concerts, courtesy phones, public internet terminals and signals. Everyone's WiFi autologs onto anything open. Every manual says you must secure it. Like any other thing.

Civil tort maybe, criminal if so defined, but not arrestable. And this guy works in the computer unit?

Dave Atherton, Bolton, UK

In a week when an innocent 11 year old is shot dead, I would have thought the police have more relevant priorities.

Nick, London NW3, UK

Not really sure why this is news. Kids dying in greater London, and across the UK from gang violence amongst 10 to 16yr olds, children disappearing and kidnapped by your local 'protected' pedophile, and we have two officers, and the police PR spin working overtime charging this chap.

To those who state people should know they are on someone else's network I challenge you to check for youself just how many open networks there are called NETGEAR, BELKIN, and so on.
And if your own network drops, guess whose network your system will grab by default to continue serving you with a connection? Not many people would know the difference between their Netgear and someone else's.

To those who claim open networks are at fault, kudo's! This is exactly the problem. Open networks should be secured on installation & SSID brcast disabled, such a simple process these days. And have these brilliantly trained police officers assist those homes that have not secured yet ;)

johan de lange, london,

Internet crime is a serious matter, and should not be treated lightly. However, it is reasonably easy even for the novice, to effectively secure their WiFi connection. All they need to do is set their router to WAP security, and once they have connected their laptop/additional computers, turn off the router's wireless broadcast ability. If that is done, then only a serious hacker would be able locate and infiltrate the wireless network. Anyone found to be 'hacking' in those circumstances should, rightfully, be arrested, and charged.

Desmond, Barnstaple,

Of all the crimes that should be enforced is this really the most pressing for people living in london? Frankly I know enough people who've been mugged to think otherwise. Surely the people with the unsecure connection should be fined for aiding terrorist?

Chris Batten, London,

This seems completely dumb to me . How are computer users supposed to tell if one person is sharing their internet freely or if they are too ignorant to put an encryption code on their network? If I go to a coffee shop and use their wireless internet that they are providing as a service, am I stealing? If people are using my unprotected network, which is unprotected on purpose, are they stealing? I truly believe that if you don't understand a technology, don't use it. A previous comment said if a car door is open and a person takes the car it’s stealing. That analogy doesn't make sense in this application. In a wireless network, if someone would steal your "car" with the door open another car would instantly show up for you to use. You can’t steal the entire wireless network.

To me this application of the law makes no sense and is probably perpetuated by corporate internet providers. I hope this never comes to the states.

Dave, Houston, Texas

scrumping now carries a prison sentence...

Hugh, London, Albion

I recently was asked by a friend to sort out a problem they were having with their wireless network. They had two PCs and a laptop all supposedly connecting to the internet via a broadband router. This had been their setup for about a year.

However I found that one of the PCs was in fact accessing the internet via their neighbours (not sure which one) unsecured wireless network and hence couldn't print or transfer files to/from the main PC.

The point is that they had no idea and nor did the neighbour. You don't log on to an unsecured network because by definition there is no security to go through.

Had the guy sitting on the wall accessed the home owner's PC or reconfigured their router to prevent further access by the owner then that would constitute misuse. The only 'crime' committed here is in fact by the police for wasting their own time when they should be engaged in more serious detective work.

Marc Levine, London, UK

This is utterly stupid - it's beyond a joke. The police should be doing something constructive and preventing a REAL crime, not wandering around upholding some nanny state PC law.

It is the responsibility of the wi-fi owner to secure their network from access. Windows sometimes logs onto "Hot Spots" automatically, so who is at fault here? The laptop user? The wi-fi owner? Microsoft? Bill Gates!?!

It's pathetic and no different from my neighbor claiming I'm stealing his rain because I've left my empty coffee cup in his garden. Maybe I should call the police and report "light theft" when people walk past my house and obtain the benefit of my lighting at night.

I mean really, get a grip! Where is it going to end?

As for the sentences handed out, well they're far too over the top. People have got less for assault, violent crime and death by dangerous driving. This says everything that is wrong with this county when you get more for wi-fi "theft" (unsecured use) than killing someone!

Adam, Wiltshire,

For all those commentators who think this is "a laugh" or a waste of police time - tell it to the Canadian police who stopped a car on suspicion and found a laptop-using paedophile logging in through citizens' home broadband connections. It wouldn't have been so funny if their knowledge of this had come from the other end by backtracking from the paedophile web sites to the citizens' houses!

SECURE YOUR HOME BROADBAND BEFORE THIS HAPPENS TO YOU

KR, Stockport,

I live in Italy and sadly this is the direction Italian government is taking as well..
I have a flat broadband contract and it doesn't matter if someone is using my WI-FI.
If the signal was protected, or at least if the SSID was something like "PRIVATE NETWORK. DO NOT CONNECT" you may speak of "theft", but in this case.....

Antonello, Ancona, Italy

Very efficient police work. Meanwhile 11 year olds are getting shot on the streets...

s, new york, uk

some people pay for broadband by the download, so someone 'pinching' their downloads is a theft, so it isn't victimless

Yes a wireless modem will pick up a wireless network if it is available, but it will tell you what you have connected to. And in the world of ISPs geared to the IT illiterate there is no need to be experienced in computers and their security to be connected wirelessly to the web.

If I leave my front door unlocked is it ok for strangers to walk in and take food from my fridge? (I would stay away from anything the wifes prepared, worse than any jail sentance).

Chris, Brisbane, Australia

Its not so much the legislation itself that is so amusing - such obscure provisions aimed at protecting the integrity of broadcast data are likely to have their counterpart in other jurisdictions - but more incredibly, for the patrolling police offices to have known about it!

A Holmes, Auckland, NZ

it would seem that all the fools here are missing the point. If you have a wireless connection and do not secure it and your local child molester logs onto and surfs child porn it will be YOUR IP ADDRESS that comes up when the police go looking for the culprit and you will be in court fighting to clear your name for some thing you did not do.

It seems that we have become completly unable to deal with crime. No matter how small only 5 mph over the speed limit, only using his connection without permission, only mugging this old lady for her pension. All these are breaking the law and should be punished in the harshest of manners. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

Lastly show the police some respect from the look of most of the posts you all have very little respect for anyone. These people keep us as safe as they can against a system of laws that allow people to get away with murder. We should remeber that they only enforce the law not make them.

Simon, newcastle,

"Wasn't it New York that was discussing having the person who left their WiFi connection unsecure to be the criminal?
That seems the more sensible solution. "

That is the same as saying the victom of crime is really the criminal.

However, to me this should not be a crime at all. You do no harm to anyone and do not deprive them of anything.

"I bought a mobile phone recently that had WiFi on it and it was beeping all the time as it picked up half a dozen wireless connections - I wonder if I'd have a case for suing Orange if I got nicked?

There is a difference between picking up a signal and deliberately using the connection.

neil murphy, cromer,

Since protecting a Wi-Fi connection through encryption is so easy to do, any unprotected Wi-Fi "hotspot" is obviously intended to be available to the public. The presumption must be that an open Wi-Fi connection is intended as a public accomodation if the Wi-Fi signal is violating a public right of way and is accessable to any member of the public with a laptop. Since no security mechanisms have been tampered with, no "locks" broken per se, then no crime has been committed.

Why aren't the police and prosecutors more worried about stopping knife attacks and drive-by shootings? Is anyone going to believe that borrowing bandwidth is somehow a more serious "offense" and worthy of any attention when rampant muggings and 11-year olds being killed are happening?

This is the problem with laws enacted by people who do not understand technology.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

ISPs can trace back what you have initiated from your home connection. So if terrorist related act, crime or fraud are traced to your IP address, you'll probably have quite a bit of explanations to do, even if you are innocent. Don't be naive or ignorant, secure your wireless access point, that should at least lower your chance of getting into trouble, and help stop people from being able to commit crime too easily.

arctanck, Reading,

The analogy with stealing a TV is crass (someone's comment below). A better analogy would be that he was caught leaning against a poorly insulated wall to keep warm, or listening to a radio through an open window. Nothing was really "consumed." If he didn't steal data the worst that he could have done was to make a tiny impact on connection speed of the network owner.

A total waste of police time.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

Wow. Congratulations. This is the first story to make the U.S. legal system seem sane.

Wait until there's a million iPhones in the U.K. They have WiFi, so you could break the law from your pocket and not even know it. Sweet.

I see the need for some law here, maybe require companies to make some form of encrytion / password / MAC filtering ON BY DEFAULT. That would be a a two minute firmware update and would not require draining law enforcement resources.

Again, thank you for the laugh.

Adam, Key West, USA

It is a good idea to restrict wireless access to any network
you are providing to only trusted users for the following
reasons

1 Without restricting access it may be likely that your pc will be
open to attack. Your confidential data, name, address and financial details, may be stored in some form on your machine and this could be used by an attacker, for criminal use.
Only allow access to trusted users who understand your
"accepted use policy". Provide them with restricted only access
to your pc and its resources. Deny everyone else any access or use

2 An unauthourised user logged onto your network
may carry out illegal activities via the connection they are using, such as hacking other servers via your internet connection.
If a security breach occurs somewhere, it may be traced
back to the network from where the attack originated, ie
your wireless network. You may then be held responsible
for damage caused by your network.

Richard, Tonbridge, UK

What a ridiculous over-reaction.
Yes, it was naughty - and police intervention could have been useful and appropriate - which this wasn't.

Joe, Manchester,

will of east sussex makes a lot of sense, i think a lot of the other people who have commented here are missing the point entirely. any law has a background, an intention, and in this case it is to stop computer fraud against those who arent adequately protected or who find themselves under attack by a superior hacker. in either case it is a deliberate attempt, and could do a lot of damage to a persons finances and/or credit rating, the kind of damage which can have a huge effect on someones life in the long term. those who have what they consider to be unbeatable security or who can afford a few days worth of someone else pissing around with their credit card can tell us that this crime is the victims fault or not as serious as other crimes, but this opinion does not serve them well or survive scrutiny in other areas where they themselves could be the victim. should i tell a mugging victim that he/she should work out more? or get a knife? not leave the house maybe?

andy waugh, sunderland,

I see, so if you forget to lock your car it is OK for me to borrow it when you am not using it if I replace the petrol (hence no loss to you). Or if you leave your IPod by accident its OK for me to borrow it while you are not using it.

Get real guys ...

John Bunting, Sheffield, UK

Yet another case of a nonsensical application of laws against their intentions.

First, in the piggybacking itself without cracking encryption, the computer is irrelevant. Without encryption, the wireless connection is a simple open radio broadcast, that's all. Therefore it should be treated as any use of the airwaves. An open Wifi connection is basically a fool offering a public service.

Second, to quote the article, "To do so *potentially* breaches the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act.” They're running around trying to prosecute people to provide precedent for controlling wireless traffic. This has nothing to do with investigating known crimes, but with inventing new ones.

Dan Fearnley, Oxford, UK,

Seriously, has anyone lost anything by this 'crime' being committed? Did the owner even notice? This is about as close to a victimless crime as there ever could be. Isn't six months in jail a bit harsh for that, seeing as the prisons are all full anyway?

Richard Friend, Dartford, UK

I haven't read all the comments here, there are quite a lot of them, but logging onto someone else's wireless internet connection is more dangerous than most people seem to think it is. People can track card numbers and other personal details just by using the wireless router. People who don't have their internet connection secured are at risk of this. That person could've quite easily be doing just that, which obviously is a crime.

Will, Brighton, East Sussex

Typical broadbands can be password protected not to mention the option of firewalls. Everyone owns the air space and broadband signals hardly respect that.

louis, Portland, Oregon

If the network was open then i dont see a problem unless he was stealing information, some people actually do leave them open on purpose.

If he hacked his way in sure.

dan, bham,

I pay £17.99 a month to Richard Branson for my broadband. If he doesn't want people sitting on my garden wall using my connection then it's up to him, not me, to stop it. Personally I coudn't care less whether half the population of the UK uses it. I pay for using it in my house. My responsibility ends there.The wires outside are his.

eric , harrogate, uk

Ha, give it a rest Karen.

By its very nature technology is complicated. It's just like leaving your front door open. you would expect in a perfect world for no one to walk in, but you can't, and they will. it just seems people are too lazy to learn. you might as well be saying, if the universe just made particle physics simple to undertake and didn't use jargon, we'd all be making black holes. it's complicated for you, because you are ignorant

there is no such thing as gobbledygook when it comes to wireless routers anymore. They are so damn simple. it's just a waste of police time and an indication of how 3000 more things have become illegal under labour.

Gregory, Reading, UK

It is still thieving, so if you leave you car door open and it's stolen it's not the thiefs fault and is exonerated,now that is RIDDICULOUS

Jon, Devon,

This arrest no doubt will contribute to the statistics which show the excellent arrest and prosecution rates by the police! Even though it is a criminal offence, there must be tons of other unsolved crimes with more victims as well as deeper impact which the police should be spend