|
Reviewing ISPs' Terms of Service usually reveals a clause that not only allows the ISP to reveal customer information to the authorities to assist with legitimate criminal investigations, but also holds the customer responsible for any activities the connection is (ab)used for.
We have an odd situation currently in which those who make the laws about modern technologies really don't seem to understand the issues they are debating. (In the UK at least) The law holds the person using the unsecured network without permission guilty of stealing bandwidth, - using a law that was created before the proliferation of wireless networks in urban areas - whilst the ISP holds the person who failed to maintain the security of the network culpable for any misdeeds perpetrated using the connection.
The issues of what is morally right, and even what is legal, seem to diminish in relevance with regards to modern technology. When the law and the policies of powerful companies are so contradictory and unproven in court, the significant question becomes not 'what is the rule of law?' but 'what is the praxis of law?'
This story raises a lot of unanswered questions.
How on earth was this man's activity detected, unless he used that particular wireless connection for long periods of time on a regular basis, or unless the police were searching for people to catch at this particular 'crime'? Or was there some form of entrapment involved?
Surely a common sense approach would determine that if you do not secure your wireless network then you have been negligent in protecting your bandwidth and lose police protection from those who want to 'take' it. On the other hand, if a passerby uses that connection for illegal purposes, that is in no way the fault of the connection provider - as long as the failure to secure the network cannot be proven to have been motivated by dishonest intent.
|