View Single Post
Old 03-10-2008, 23:28   #133
cook1984
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 556
cook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud ofcook1984 has much to be proud of
Re: Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossdagley View Post
Where (in UK law) does it state, or where has a precidence been set, where an end customer is responsible for his connection (in a civil case remember - no point compairing this to a child porn download - criminal Vs. civil).
There is currently no president in UK law for this, but rulings in Europe (notably Germany) so far have suggested that having an insecure wireless network is a valid defence. It is most likely acceptable in the UK too - people have been prosecuted in the past for using unsecured wireless networks without consent so it appears to be similar to someone entering your home via an unlocked door.

It's also worth baring in mind that WEP is not secure - it can be broken in a few minutes. Some equipment only supports WEP, and it's difficult to see how a court would rule that someone who set up WEP security and was hacked would then hold them liable.

You would also not legally be liable for failing to secure your network. If someone steals your car and commits criminal damage while joyriding, you are not liable for the damages because you didn't fit an immobiliser. If someone uses your photocopier to copy pages from a copyrighted book, again you are not liable - they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymmy View Post
Nothing to do with UK law...it's a civil claim so innocent till proven guilty is thrown out of the window in fact it's actually harder to prove your innocence in a civil claim than a criminal one as a criminal one has a standard or proof that needs to be met before you;re found guilty.
In civil law it is a balance of probabilities, i.e. they need to prove there is a 51% chance or more that you did it. Having dealt with this type of situation before in Small Claims Court (which uses the same system) I can assure you that judges do not simply rule based on some flaky evidence, especially if you have a reasonable argument as to why it wasn't you.

Think about what you are saying for a moment - I could sue anyone for copyright infringement of something I made up, produce a doctored screenshot or two of uTorrent with their IP address (or just frame their IP address, also trivially easy) and force them to give me money.
cook1984 is offline   Reply With Quote