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 spending their time looking into!

KTC, Ex-UK,

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.

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?

Tony, Birmingham,

There are many free and legitimate WiFi connections out there. So how is one meant to differentiate between those that are and aren't legitimate, especially when the owner has been so negligent as to not secure his WiFi network?

The breaching of a "security enabled" network must surely become the reasonable test of Misuse under law.

David Scheiby, Solihull, UK

One is tempted to point out that, in a city with the violent crime London enjoys, the police might have bigger fish to fry ...........

Bill Atkins, Rehoboth Beach, USA

Tsai in Cambridge, you said it all.

Lawrence, Liverpool, England

My WI-Fi has a password security. But if any one wants to use it from the street I would allow. As most of comments suggest, it should be a free service. Where is the crime?. Can't these people see the benefits, and only see "some criminal can hack into your computer". When police were informed of my credit card idetity and stole my 'real' money (later the bank refunded), police did nothing. Broadband companies should provide hot spots on mobile phone masks.

Anand

Peter, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here – whether this was, in fact, theft, and whether the police/CJS response was proportional.

On the first question, no matter how petty the offence, I cannot agree with those who say either “where’s the harm in it?” or “the householder should have secured his network”. The latter is straightforward victim-blaming, and the former is a poor apology for simply helping yourself to something that someone else is paying for – theft, in other words. Also, we don’t know that the individual was just checking e-mails or surfing, rather than doing something more sinister.

On the second question, though, the response is clearly disproportionate. However, I suspect that this individual is paying the price for being quite so blatant about it, and is, unfortunately for him, being used as an example.

Anthony, London,

This is nothing at all to do with 'theft' as such. After all, it's almost impossible to get the police to attend your home after a burglary, so why should they care about some bandwidth? The police have instructions about this because the government wants to be able to identify who is doing what on the net and 'piggybacking' makes this impossible.

Frank Hartley, Paris, France

Why is the police wasting its time protecting corporate profits?

This is entirely a victimless "crime."

The only benefit of these prosecutions is that W-Fi companies now have the police force acting as a de facto sales force for them. Do the cops get a commission from inceased sales?

Besides, there should be a national and free Wi-Fi service.

Gary Ricin, Vermont, USA

Sorry, I'm with Karen on this one. Too many people to whom anything beyond plug it in is a mystery - and where is there some place where those of us who don't have the aptitude or extensive amounts of time to experiment can learn more than how to turn it on?? The salespeople can't/won't/too lazy to explain when you purchase and believe me the instructions could just as well be written in Japanese. Anyway, how many of you potatoes maintain your own car engines? Leave them to the experts, right? They're just as confusing as pc's. I'd be glad to safeguard if I knew how, but as it is, I'm

glad I can't afford wifi, anywhere,

Got to love British Law, this man gets shafted for using what is by and large public access. That fool Pete Doherty seems to be able to get away with numerous drug offences. Really can't stand it.

Andy, Shanghai,

An interesting case:

S125 of the Communications Act says:

"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."

Therefore this is not a strict liability offence - criminal intent must be proven (mens rea). In that event unless it is apparent that the service to which a user finds themselves connected is not intended for the use of passers-by unless by payment, it would appear to me that there is still a lot of latitude for someone connected to a wifi network to argue that they had no idea the service was a payable one.
In addition householders who wish to extract payment for electronic communication services would themselves have to consider if they must register with OFCOM as a service provider - & hotels come to that...
Seciton 126 is even more interesting...

Owen Sayers, Edinburgh, UK

Paul F from Esher's analogy is mistaken when he says "If a stranger wanders in and takes my TV, should he be allowed to keep it? After all I should have closed and locked my door."

Rather than taking your tv, it is more accurate to suggest that he steps inside your house to enjoy the air-conditioning you left on. There is no physical loss to you; he is just using a service that you have paid for.

Dave, London,

I feel its simple, save the resources on this case, legal will be large i am guessing if it goes to court. Tackle some real cases such as organised crime on the internet, or more impportantly knife/gun crime.
who really cares about someone that used someones internet. yes it should be secured, and yes the gentleman should not have been cheeky and stolen bandwidth. But its a bit over the top policing once again... i think maybe they should have gone in guns a blazing. lol. i guess they could have used the excuse he was an online terrorist.
Simply put its a waist once again of tax payers money to persue such a petty case.
Mkes you think i would have more of a penalty for stealing the owners bandwith than knocking on his door, punching him in the face and stealing his wallet.

Frank, london,

I can't believe that you could potentially receive a jail term for logging on to an unsecured wireless network! It is the owners responsibility to protect it if they don't want anyone else logging on to it.

John, Redcar, UK

Phew! I feel a lot safer now this hardened criminal is off the streets. Certainly changed my mind that Community Support Officers (for it was they that detained him) are a waste of time.

I wonder if this man will become one of the half a dozen people convicted of this offence - a crime wave indeed!

Really haven't they got anything better to do? Couldn't they taken his details and located the homeowner? I'm sure the Computer Crime Unit has plenty of more serous things to deal with - child pornography, terrorism, serous fraud etc.

Rachel Morgan, London,

To Mr Paul F who says there should be no requirement to secure a WLAN connection, I ask you this: If every wireless connection were left unsecure (relying on people's honesty not to steal internet service) then how would the police or other agencies track pedophiles, extremists and other assorted low-lives posting defamatory materials or inciting violence? These people would have an endless supply of free connections which could not be traced to them - at least not without a great deal more effort.

Mark, London,

No one is expecting you to know how to secure a wifi connection, that is unless you have a wifi connection; then yes you are expected to know. Don't buy something if you don't know how to use it. If you really want it, then buy books about it before you buy it.
Whilst I don't agree with the actions of the wifi abusers, if leave a fresh pie on your windowsill, someone might eat it.

J Kuz, London, uk

Factually, it’s a crime, but practically, it’s an unpoliceable one, and can only be prevented by the network owners taking responsibility instead of expecting the police to do the impossible (which would amount, when you think about it, to potentially having to investigate every single laptop sighted in public!). It’s tantamount to leaving our houses unlocked then expecting the police to prevent/investigate burglaries.

Simple Solution: Package every wireless router with a jargon-free on the dangers of unprotected networks and how to secure them. Should the user, however non tech-savvy, then ignore this, then that’s their look out. Cost? Less than a fraction of a penny per unit. Do that, and the police can get on with things other than trying to compensate for public ignorance, and the manufacturers/ISPs can stop worrying about the otherwise inevitable day when they start getting served with opportunistic compensation claims.

Common Sense – a lost art.

Colin, Glasgow, Scotland

Should have arrested people in the home that gave free connection. doesnt make any sense ,Its obvious he din't steal anything (meaning hack in computer terms).

If you put the board public toilet , means anyone can use it....should laugh only at the police.Seems they dont have any other work.

Jon, Glasgow, UK

He almost certainly was granted permission to use the broadband connection: his computer requested an address from the DHCP server embedded in the wireless router and it granted him access. If the owner of the wireless router did not want it to behave in this way they could have restricted access. Ridiculous.

ojb, london, uk

if everyone has an open wifi connection , then that would provide free wifi coverage over large parts of the country, which would benefit all of us when out and about.
As for the police officers who felt that this arrest was the best use of their time(time paid for be tax payers ) well i think they need to have a rethink about what the people of this country expect of them, and begs the question who is the real theives , the chap using someone's wifi , or the two police officers wasting our money with this sort of rubbish, i do hope there were no burglerys or muggings in that area that day!

garry lloyd, whitby,

So British - so sad. Here in the US there are many people who leave their wifi open and free for others to use. You can secure your computer without securing your network. Keep your data secure and stop wasting the valuable time of the police. Leave them to do something that really matters, like catching drug pushers or people trying to blow things up. Leave piggy back surfers alone.

Sue, Peoria, Arizona

It's a bit like arresting someone for standing in the street and smelling the roses in a neighbour's garden.

I voluntarily share my Internet connection with registered FON users. In return I get free access to other FON users' internet connections when I'm travelling. It costs me nothing to share my connection as I have no monthly download limit.

J Stanley, Bayeux, France

This sum up everything wrong with this country. The Police should be ashamed of themselves and the magistrates want sacking. If the guy was using it for malicious intent or depriving the owner of bandwith then ok, but as is the police action is unaceptable. I like many of the other people commenting will sometimes piggy back on an unprotected signal. Its not theft and anybody who considers it so is of dubious mental capacity.

Basically this country stinksand in particular the authorities who do not govern it ,for the benefit of its citizens.

Steven Katirai, Ncl / Tyne, UK

Get a life John Hinchliffe from Dubai. If I throw a crisp packet into someone's wheelie bin ought I to be fined for this also? The UK justice system is flawed to the point it has become a joke, with dangerous criminals being released after paltry minimal sentences, and serious crimes being rewarded with mild scoldings. In all likelihood the Wi-fi subscriber in question probably didn't care about someone piggy-backing. I agree with Nash from London. Shame on you police, and shame on you again. This sort of spineless 'crime-fighting' makes you look like a bunch of girls.

John, Hove, East Sussex

This is nothing to do with theft only the right of the CPS to convict anyone on the basis that any particular traffic flowed over their IP address.

fnu snu, Gen., Switz.

Insane to waste valuable Police resources on a so called "crime". If a user chooses to leave their Broadband connection Open that is their choice. What harm has been caused here ? absolutely none.

And what a harsh punishment too !!

Yank, London,

"typical computer geeks expecting people to know how to secure their wifi. If retailers and internet providers cut the gobbledygook iand made it easier and simple to undertake this kind of stealing would not happen"


Typical waste of space.. passing on personal responsibility yet again! If you buy yourself the equipment spend the time & effort setting it up properly (ie. securely) or don't complain when someone else uses your connection. That's why this country is in such a mess, no one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore. Blame culture perpetuated by the nanny state!

Rant over.

Mike Hock, London,

I totally agree with the previous post, I think it is the responsibelity of the owner who is broadcasting unsecured Wifi signals.

Max, Gloucestershire,

Agree with Jim Carr, Bospham, UK

V, England, Hants

Hi,

This is totally stupid. If people can not be bothered to secure their WiFi network then they deserve it to be used by passing people.

ISP`s should be forcing their subscribers to enable WEP 64bit Encryption at least or WPA-PSK. The Police just want a easy target so they went after the free loader using his WiFi connection.

McDonalds offer a FREE Wi-Fi use in their store, So is this arrestable if you just go in their and use theirs ??? If this person was using the home owners wifi connection to do illegal stuff like Downloading Illegal software/music/movies using P2P or Surfing Questionable Adult websites then he should be arrested and punished.

Come on Goverment, pass a common law that forces users to enable encryption on their WiFi networks. At least make the ISP force customers to use it or face the lawyers from the customer if a free loader uses his connection to do illegal stuff.

Stupid, Just stupid.

Paul Morris, Kings Lynn, UK

If a connection is not secured, then surely that is implicitly granting permission for people to use it, and no offence has been committed. Many public-spirited people deliberately leave their connection open to provide a convenient wireless 'hotspot'.

Hacking WPA or WEP encryption would be a different matter, as the owner of the service has made it clear that public access is unwelcome.

Mike Hart, Hayes, Middx., UK

where i live, i can get about a dozen wifi connections. half of them unsecured.
mine is unsecured, and they can use it whenever they want. this is a public offer ....

mark, antwerp, spain

The police are our servants - we pay their salaries!! The council employing these out-of-control big-brothers-in-training should reduce the police budget and use the money to build a library, where the guy would have been able to surf for free.

Tsai, Cambridge,

Nash, John ans Andy are all absolutely right and spot-on. Hicking a net-ride is criminal and most likely done to log onto unethical sites given the small cost of a connection and low charges by Internet-cafes.

Vic, Airdrie, Scotland

totaly agree with you nash, what a joke. Why are they wasting thier time arresting people for using un secured wifi when theres 11yr old kids getting shot. think someone needs to prioritise.

Ian, Nottingham,

"typical computer geeks expecting people to know how to secure their wifi."

Which could translate as "Typical, DIY specialists expecting people how to put a lock on the front door". If it is that important you should get someone in.

No geek here - I just read the instructions. It's much easier than using most Microsoft products! Although, perhaps the setup process should naturally handhold people through securing the connection just to be sure.

Ben, Shanghai, China

echo Karens comment, then prosicute the unsecured wifi connection owner as well....

john, southampton, uk

I guess he should have asked for the owner's permission before logging on. Another example would be seeing a film in a cinema without paying; sure there's plenty of seats but ....

BTW did the owner not say 'Leave it officer, it's not worth it'?

I would have.

Justin, Alford, UK

The spirit of Internet is that it is a free resources but a few entities have conered it for their own selfish commercial interest. They are the real thiefs? Who will prosecute them?

What if the house owner knowlngly allows the public to access his network and by deliberately keeping it open? Will it still be a "thefr"?
"Theft" is depriving someone of somthing against his will. In this case the homeowner may not have been deprived of anything.
No one owns internet and hence it should be "Free for all to use"
Governments and public authorities should provide free Wi-Fi access to the public so people communicate with eachother better and ease the flow of commerce.

jpbliss, horsham, west sussex , England

By having an unsecure WiFi router in your home and making a complaint of somebody 'illegally' using this connection is more insane than asking a homeless person if they've got any spare change. like somebody said you leave a £5 note in the street and jump on anybody who picks it up shouting 'CITIZENS ARREST'. people should ensure that their connection is secured and if not then effectively they are hosting a free hotspot. Everybody who has a WiFi router will be aware of the protection needed to prevent 'unlawful' use by other people as it is in the instructions to all routers. Police should be using their resources for better things and maybe spend a little time on advising people of how to secure their connections. It is extremely worrying to think our taxes are paying for such petty things. not only this but our taxes will pay to keep this person in prison for the 6months he faces for something which should not even be a crime.

Luke, Durham,

I live in an area where I can easily pick up SIX wireless networks within range of my wireless connection. Of those, four are fairly well protected (at least, with WPA-TKIP) but mine is the only one using the supposedly better AES encryption. The other five don't even hide their SSID. My belief is if you can work out how to surf the net and protect yourself with various software against online theft, you should learn how to better protect a signal that can extend out over several hundred metres to any other wireless user within range. BT's previous 64bit WEP standard on routers is poor and easily broken with the right tools, freely available if you Google for them. It may well be a crime but if those using the systems fail to protect them, like their homes and valuables, then they are just as much the fault as the suppliers of the hardware and software. Better education is needed rather than wasting resources turning everyone into criminals.

ChrisP, Norwich, UK

Karen in Manchester -

Typical geeks? you have to choose NOT to enter a password and thus secure your WIFI. I hope the choice of "yes" or "no" isn't to technical for you.

Paul Fairchild, Colnbrook,

Glad to see the police are on top form yet again.

I've had 12 break-ins in two years at my home and work place. I have never been visited by a policeman. Apparently burglary is no longer a 'serious crime'. My brother recently had his number plates stolen from his car, parked on his driveway. He reported it but again, no police interest.

He later received a summons for 34mph in a 30 mph limit. He suggested that this was not him and was, in fact, more likely to be the thief who'd pinched his plates perhaps? Apparently that's no excuse. They wanted to send a team of 4 to inspect the car and establish if my brother, clearly a serious criminal, was telling the truth or not. He was warned of very dire consequences if he was found to be wrong in his assumption of innocence.

As ever, plod is right on the money. They used to say the British Army were lions lead by donkeys. I reckon a more accurate description of the police force (sorry, service) is asses lead by ostriches.

Mark, Birmingham, UK

fancy having a large fine put on you for doing something as minor as this but you can get away with murder in this country, what a poor state of affairs we have got to-but i suppose it is an easy cop, for the police.

the count, leicester, uk

This is not a case of "typical computer geeks" it simple security and product knowlage. You dont buy a car when you cant drive, Understand the product learn what needs to be done to keep you and your home network safe.
If you dont understand how to use these devices correctly dont use wireless. You have to be proactive about security not matter wither its computer, home or personal.
Also its not down to the Retailers to explain the ins and outs of how to use wireless. Its to sell it, product support is an extra that some retail outlets provide.

Alistair, Glasgow, Uk

I agree it is up to the household to secure the wi-fi, policing this is a rediculous waste of resources.
Would insurance companies payout if we left our doors open.

The police have some very odd priorities.

Maggie Millington, Brittany , France

6 months for that!!! Oh please, find something more important to tackle and give the guy a slap on the wrist...

diana, London,

Personally, i am more than happy to share my bandwidth for people passing through. Rather that than expect people to pay subsicription charges for services that are normally poor, or worse possibly a scam. With very little effort your personnel computer and information will still be as secure as any computer connected to the internet.

A follow up question was the owner of the wireless asked if they minded?

Alex Gunn, Worthing, West Sussex

This is not fair on the part of UK Police as the person was upfront honest to confess that he was using WIFI service of a neighbor. I would say he should have been given a warning and leave that petty matter. Infact warning/ fine should be issued to owner who is broadcasting unsecured Wifi signals, because of his carelessness others are getting encouraged to use the same

RaY, London, UK

It's still stealing, even if it's easy.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

I agree with Nash in London. 2 weeks ago I was stuck for an hour in the UK border queue at Stansted Airport . It was after midnight. The Chavs arriving from the Costas did not feel queuing like the thousand or so others of us was necessary. They literally pushed aside and barged Brits and visitors alike, old and young, in order to get to the front of the queue. I didn't get out the way and the Chav told me if I didn't move he would "do me". There were two armed policeman and several Customs officers up in their ivory tower looking down at us all. They had a bird's eye view of the whole affair and did nothing. When I got through passport control I complained to the armed policeman. He told me the problems with the queue were none of his business and that I should talk to the airport. I asked if crowd control was his remit and he said and he just passed the buck to someone else. Typical British bobby. If it's not terrorism they aren't interested. What about everyday crime?

Ben, London,

If you read OFTEL regulations, everyone is legally allowed to SHARE their internet connection with anyone. (I think it said upto 20 people). SHARE your connections - most sites that require a password are also secure web-sites using SSL (Secure Socket Layer) so no reason to be worried if you SHARE!

Satnam Shergill, London, UK

And the police claim they are overworked and underfunded???? If they weren't so busy arresting young scamps for throwing cocktail sausages and people stuck in traffic jams for using their moibile phones they might be able to tackle the lootings, stabbings and antisocial behaviour that is all to common on our streets.

john, Reading,

An absolute joke.
A sick joke though, and indicative of police priorities these days.
A gang of feral youths kicking a defenceless man to death?
"Sorry sir, too busy to come out."
A non-threatening man using some else's WiFi?
"We'll be there in seconds!"

Jim Carr, Bospham, UK

There should be no prequisite to secure your wireless internet connection.

Sometimes when I am gardening I leave my back door open. If a stranger wanders in and takes my TV, should he be allowed to keep it? After all I should have closed and locked my door.

The answer is no, because it is still theft.

Paul F, Esher,

What a waste of police time. Wireless LANs can be easily secured should the owner wish to prevent such "theft". To not do so is tantamount to entrapment, and analogous to leaving 50p in the street and arresting anyone who dares pick it up. The current government appear to be intent on passing enough laws to make criminals of us all.

Eric Murray, Auckland,

The way I see it, if you don't put any kind of protection on your wifi then you are simply inviting people to use your internet; if you were to protect it and they crecked your wep then that would maybe a crime, but this is not! If people use my access points then i turn it back on them by having network access to their computer too :-p

Kristan, York, North Yorkshire

This is a waste of police time and this instance is probably quite different from someone cracking a poorly secured connection to enter a computer network with malicous intent. With so many wi-fi routers being installed without passwords now, especially in cities, prosecuters will have a hard time proving the theft is deliberate or that a theft occured at all. Leaving your wi-fi router open and unsecured is negligent and is tantamount to making a gift, like leaving something unwanted outside your house with a sign ''free to good home" and what if you go into your garden and want to log onto your network with wi-fi, you have to be very careful that you are not getting a neighbour's stronger unsecured signal.

Nat Bocking, Halesworth, Suffolk/

If someone does not use minimal or reasonable means to protect their broadband connection, someone who uses it, innocently or otherwise, cannot be wholly to blame.
It's the equivalent of leaving your house doors and windows open.
I agree with those who say that the police are scared of doing any real work , and like Ian Blair's statements, the forces are full of the pretence of policing.
Watch a petty accident occur in the street and see how many coppers turn up. Its like a mini convention.

K Urban, London, UK

typical computer geeks expecting people to know how to secure their wifi. If retailers and internet providers cut the gobbledygook iand made it easier and simple to undertake this kind of stealing would not happen

karen, manchester, uk

re: John Hinchliffe
I think you'll find the penalties in Dubai for theft are slightly more severe than they are in this country. You've got to hand it to them though, they've got a deterrent.

Anybody with an unsecured wifi network is asking for trouble. Half of them are probably connecting to their neighbours without realising.
BT Broadband may be a premium service, but at least they take the securing of the equipment they provide seriously even if it was only 64BIT WEP when I got it a while ago.

Adam Cruickshank, Thetfford, UK

There is no requirement to secure a wireless AP, and many therefore have identical factory default SSID and password (if any). PC's can therefore log-on to many connections quite innocently -indeed Windows offers this option to do just that.

£500 fine for some scamp using someone's unsecured internet. This is England today sadly, as you only get a caution if you are a chav who stamps on someone's head or carries a knife. Our police are now effectively the enemy.

Police in the UK no longer serve the public, they are afraid of real policing, such as tackling gangs and chavs on our streets. They are obsessed with meeting their inspector's weekly 'figures' target by going after non-crimes like this, or traffic 'offences' like someone forgetting their seat belt. Police here are now local authority tax collectors as their primary function, and are loyal only to their wages each month and capable of doing anything to us without question. Just gimmee the money is all they care about

Nash, London,

What has the world come to? It's an act of theft pure and simple. Sure the subscriber is responsible for securing his network, but without the widespread prevalence & acceptance of theft in the UK's society then people will continue to expect something for nothing. Living in Dubai I am amazed at what a crime & theft free society we have out here - wallets/mobiles can be accidentally left in taxis and they're returned - without anything missing. Leave your car unlocked and it will neither be broken into nor any of the contents removed. Bert from Brighton should remember that sharing/borrowing pre-supposes you asked permission of the owner in the 1st place. Why am I surprised that the incident report made no mention of this having taken place?

John Hinchliffe, Dubai, UAE

My initial reaction was that this law needs to be changed. Those of us who have been around the internet for the last 10 years still belive in the ethos information want to be free!

I left my wireless un-protected for years in order to let others use it if they needed, and have never throught of it as a crime to hop onto somone elses unprotected network to access email.

Its about community and helping others!

However, I do now protect my connection, because I fear people surfing dodgy sites using my connection, there is no protection against this.

Andy, Reading, Berkshire

Haven't the police got better things to do ? Surely there are people with guns and knives they should be catching ?

Gareth, Torquay,

Easy target yet again.

The impotent pathetic excuse we have for a tax force...sorry meant to say...police..ha ha ha...force, couldnt be bothered to search for the mugger, robber, rapist, murderer etc etc etc

So, they do a good days hard policing. Cutting down on the real ciminals of this world, yet again.

Nick Clark from Eastbourne summed it all up perfectly. couldnt add anything better than what was said.

This country ? - Im out of here ! WIll someone please turn the lights off on the way out. Or did the man that cause it all do that himself a few weeks back. Tony Blair has a lot to answer for. He must have been a communist infiltrator to have wreaked so much damage on a society and get away with it.

Dave, Lincoln,

I would be intrigued to know if the broadband subscriber was asked if they were bothered by the 'theft'? I am yet to be convinced that this 'offence' is like walking up a side path and using an outside metered tap without asking (and would you be arrested for that where there is a material cost?)

Some thoughts:

1)If you have wireless broadband and are foolish enough not to secure the connection (which is one of the easiest things to do if you can plug the router into the telephone line and PC) then you really have more important concerns than someone taking your bandwidth.

2) with people subscribing to 8mb pipes, most servers are unable to delever against this (or PC's use it) there is excess router capacity anyway.

3) how many houses were broken into with something of real value stolen in the area at the same time?

4) I have often found myself logged on to someone else's connection in error - should we all be arrested if we have commited this offence?

Ben, Shanghai, China

Arresting this poor man is silly. If some one is broadcasting a wifi broadband connection in an area without password protecting it, they have effectively created a public access point. How is anyone to know if it is a genuine public access point or an some one stupidly leaving their connection open? It should be down the person setting up the access point to set a password. The buck stops with them.

Nick Clark, Eastbourne, Sussex, UK

It is easy to solve this problem. All broadband wireless connections MUST be highly secured by personal passwords and can not be used without that when someone applied for a broadband. I think this will be useful to avoid such problems.

SaSa, Sheffield,

Whilst I realise that technically this is a type of theft, surely to goodness it is extremely minor, and there is every probability the 'victims' would never even notice. Are there not a million and one more important crimes the police could be spending their time investigating, or is this another case of them concentrating their efforts on chasing the type of 'criminal' who is most likely to come quietly.

Steve, Birmingham, UK

How pathetic. The bad stuff that is going on and they arrest someone because the people in the house could not be bothered to secure their network!!

Sheds are broken into and possesions stolen and then the police say well it wasn't secure, you were asking for trouble.

Same thing!

dave, st neots, uk

then they should secure their line. No harm in borrowing a little bandwith to check your eail and stuff

Kenneth Graham, incheon,

This is TOTALLY ridiculous. Why not allow others to use a service that you are comfortable to share? Is the act was malicious then there might be a reason to support the action of the Police....however i would have thought that 39 yr old workaholics would be less relevant police targets then er....criminals.

Roger Bert, Brighton, UK

Its the homeowners responsibilty to secure his wi-fi/wireless connection if he bought his modem from a high street shop... or the ISP's if he bought/leased/borrowed or was given it free by them.

F00Nian, b/pool, lancashire

Last quote - Have the Police just arrested someone without working out yet if he's breached of the criminal law?

Not very smart. Very Police State.

functus, Edinburgh,