Recently, I attended a barbecue at a friend’s house in north London, where another friend was trying to fix his laptop. “Do you realise that there are three people, right now, using your wireless broadband?” the computer expert asked my friend. He didn’t. Nor did he seem all that troubled.

Around the same time, in August, the influential House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report on internet crime. Among its 121 pages of findings, supported by over 500 pages of evidence, it concluded that the internet has become a playground for criminals. In response, the Government countered that there was applicable legislation and indicated that some of the responsibility for personal security online lies with you and me.

There is indeed digital legislation and it is increasingly being enforced. Piggybacking on someone else’s broadband is morally no different than siphoning off their electricity. It is also a crime. Just as dishonest abstraction of electricity without consent is a criminal offence under Section 13 of the Theft Act 1968, stealing wireless broadband is an offence under Section 125 of the Communications Act 2003. The legislation is clear: it is a crime to dishonestly obtain electronic communications services with the intention of avoiding paying for them.

One laptop user in west London discovered this digital end of the law in August when he was arrested for allegedly logging on to his neighbours’ broadband. It would appear that the WiFi leecher was not even particularly concerned that his activities might be seen — he was caught sitting on a garden wall outside one of his neighbours' homes. When he was questioned by the police he admitted to using the homeowner's broadband without permission. He was arrested and the case was passed to the Metropolitan Police Computer Crime Unit. He was bailed to return this month and faces the prospect of a fine or a jail term of six months, or both.

Web 2.0: new internet, new etiquette . . . new law?

Copyright and privacy infringement may be taking place on an unprecedented scale, but that doesn't mean existing laws are irrelevant

'Convergence' is not an excuse to regulate the internet

The lines are becoming increasingly blurred, so why not do away with broadcast regulation altogether, asks Graham Smith

Let your employees use Facebook — it's less risky than you think

Businesses should not allow legal risks to detract from the opportunities of web 2.0, says Mark Watts

What Google can learn from history

Technology moves at a dizzying pace but the law catches up in the end, says Richard Kemp

There is also strong, precise legislation in the UK restraining not only these crimes of “access” but a range of other digital crimes. The intentional spread of computer viruses is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Sending a spam e-mail to an individual is an offence under European privacy regulations. Even phishing, the use of e-mails or web sites to trick unwitting users into parting with their password or personal information is now tackled by the Fraud Act 2006.

We are fortunate in this country that our courts are well-versed in the online world, and ready and able to apply the nation’s laws. One of the cases referenced in the House of Lords report concerned a lawsuit in which Microsoft successfully sued a seller of e-mail addresses that had been “harvested” without permission and were being used for sending spam. I acted for Microsoft in the case, and in others like it. It is apparent from these cases that once before the English courts, spammers and those who peddle lists of email addresses will find little sympathy but strong remedies and substantial damages waiting for them.

That arrests are being made and that cases are being won against online miscreants is good news for the digital economy. But it is also true that prevention is better than cure. Installing the appropriate software protections may simply prevent online crimes from occurring in the first place.

Fortunately, even those who are unable or unwilling to secure their systems will be afforded the law's protection. This mirrors the offline world. Fitting a stronger lock on a door and installing an alarm will hopefully dissuade a number of would-be criminals cruising your road looking to break into a home. But even if you do not invest in the strongest locks and the loudest alarm, the police will still act to protect your property. Likewise, the courts will also not take into account a homeowner's precautions when sentencing the criminal who breaks in. Merely because the crime was easy to commit does not persuade the court to be more lenient.

Criminals should beware that the day is fast approaching when both victims and the authorities treat their crimes just as seriously as they do on the internet as they do in the offline world.

Clive Gringras heads the e-commerce & internet group at Olswang

Explore Law

• Public Law

• Corporate Law

• Columnists

• Student Law

• Law Reports

• Law Panel

Times Recommends

• Judges give up wigs in a case of modernisation
• ‘Paraffin mafia’ comes unstuck after €676m fines
• Total 'is ducking blame for fuel blast'