Local Headlines
Broadband thief used his laptop outside a Chiswick home
A man was arrested for stealing a broadband connection as he sat on a wall outside a house and used his laptop.
The 39-year-old was spotted by two PCSOs in Prebend Gardens, Chiswick, and when questioned he confessed to using an unsecured Wi Fi broadband connection.
Officers arrested the man who was taken to Chiswick police station yesterday morning.
He was handed over to the Computer Crime Unit and the bailed to return on October 11, pending further investigation.
DC Mark Roberts, from the Computer Crime Unit, said: "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband connections.
"To do so potentially breaches the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act, so computer users need to be aware that this is unlawful and police will investigate any violation we become aware of."
A spokesman for Hounslow CID said: "This is a good example of the diverse approach PCSOs have to their community responsibilities."
The man was bailed to return to the police station in October.
11:32am Wednesday 22nd August 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Col, South London on 11:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
Thats fair enough, he did wrong - I am not disputing that.
But people also need to ensure that their wireless networks are secure. Those that are not, are just asking for it!
Thats fair enough, he did wrong - I am not disputing that.
But people also need to ensure that their wireless networks are secure. Those that are not, are just asking for it!
Posted by: Ryan, Twickenham on 1:37pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I think that providing an unsecured Wi Fi connection is almost giving consent for users to connect. In the same way businesses such as pubs and coffee shops offer WiFi as a free service to customers.
I think that providing an unsecured Wi Fi connection is almost giving consent for users to connect. In the same way businesses such as pubs and coffee shops offer WiFi as a free service to customers.
Posted by: Bob, Cheam on 1:43pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I'm assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.
I'm assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.
Posted by: Karin Flower, London on 2:16pm Wed 22 Aug 07
The world has gone mad! Yes, maybe he was using an unsecured network - However, Why was the network not security protected? Its easy to set-up & to my mind, leaving your network unsecured is almost giving permission for people to use it. The owner of this connection is at fault surely! How do you define "the potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act?".
Was he downloading illegal imagery? was he hacking into banks? Or was he just browsing the net? I think this is a waste of police time!
The world has gone mad! Yes, maybe he was using an unsecured network - However, Why was the network not security protected? Its easy to set-up & to my mind, leaving your network unsecured is almost giving permission for people to use it. The owner of this connection is at fault surely! How do you define "the potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act?".
Was he downloading illegal imagery? was he hacking into banks? Or was he just browsing the net? I think this is a waste of police time!
Posted by: Col, South London on 3:25pm Wed 22 Aug 07
"The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection" - in most cases, everything that connects to a network is given a seperate IP address, so the owners of the connection would be in the clear once its determined the ip address isnt from one of their machines. Granted, the culprit would of got away, but at least the owner wouldnt be mistakenly convicted.
"The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection" - in most cases, everything that connects to a network is given a seperate IP address, so the owners of the connection would be in the clear once its determined the ip address isnt from one of their machines. Granted, the culprit would of got away, but at least the owner wouldnt be mistakenly convicted.
Posted by: Dave, Surrey on 5:06pm Wed 22 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Bob[/bold] wrote:
I\'m assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.[/quote] Bob, you should be a detective.
Bob wrote:
I\'m assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.
Bob, you should be a detective.
Posted by: Jay, California on 6:27pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I'm seeing comments saying that since the router was not secured, the thief is justified in stealing the access. It doesn't matter whether the router was secured or whether he hacked into it, the fact remains that he is a thief. What exactly have we come to when we justify illegal behavior by attempting to blame the owner of the service?
I'm seeing comments saying that since the router was not secured, the thief is justified in stealing the access. It doesn't matter whether the router was secured or whether he hacked into it, the fact remains that he is a thief. What exactly have we come to when we justify illegal behavior by attempting to blame the owner of the service?
Posted by: dave, london on 12:04am Thu 23 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Col[/bold] wrote:
\"The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection\" - in most cases, everything that connects to a network is given a seperate IP address, so the owners of the connection would be in the clear once its determined the ip address isnt from one of their machines. Granted, the culprit would of got away, but at least the owner wouldnt be mistakenly convicted.[/quote] No, network address translation by the wifi router means that the ISP only sees 1 IP address - multiple IP addresses are only allocated inside the network.
Col wrote:
\"The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection\" - in most cases, everything that connects to a network is given a seperate IP address, so the owners of the connection would be in the clear once its determined the ip address isnt from one of their machines. Granted, the culprit would of got away, but at least the owner wouldnt be mistakenly convicted.
No, network address translation by the wifi router means that the ISP only sees 1 IP address - multiple IP addresses are only allocated inside the network.
Posted by: dave jepson, london on 12:09am Thu 23 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Karin Flower[/bold] wrote:
The world has gone mad! Yes, maybe he was using an unsecured network - However, Why was the network not security protected? Its easy to set-up & to my mind, leaving your network unsecured is almost giving permission for people to use it. The owner of this connection is at fault surely! How do you define "the potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act?".
Was he downloading illegal imagery? was he hacking into banks? Or was he just browsing the net? I think this is a waste of police time![/quote] I agree. Its complete nonsense and the senior policeman commenting (whose time is probably very valuable) should be embarrassed. A nice easy nick for the police and the community support guys in need of better statistics. Its a bit like nicking speeders with cameras instead of genuinely bad drivers. The police need to get their priorities sorted out.
Karin Flower wrote:
The world has gone mad! Yes, maybe he was using an unsecured network - However, Why was the network not security protected? Its easy to set-up & to my mind, leaving your network unsecured is almost giving permission for people to use it. The owner of this connection is at fault surely! How do you define "the potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act?".
Was he downloading illegal imagery? was he hacking into banks? Or was he just browsing the net? I think this is a waste of police time!
I agree. Its complete nonsense and the senior policeman commenting (whose time is probably very valuable) should be embarrassed. A nice easy nick for the police and the community support guys in need of better statistics. Its a bit like nicking speeders with cameras instead of genuinely bad drivers. The police need to get their priorities sorted out.
Posted by: dave, london on 12:10am Thu 23 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Jay[/bold] wrote:
I'm seeing comments saying that since the router was not secured, the thief is justified in stealing the access. It doesn't matter whether the router was secured or whether he hacked into it, the fact remains that he is a thief. What exactly have we come to when we justify illegal behavior by attempting to blame the owner of the service?[/quote] The point is, its a stupid thing to call a crime and spend police resources on.
Jay wrote:
I'm seeing comments saying that since the router was not secured, the thief is justified in stealing the access. It doesn't matter whether the router was secured or whether he hacked into it, the fact remains that he is a thief. What exactly have we come to when we justify illegal behavior by attempting to blame the owner of the service?
The point is, its a stupid thing to call a crime and spend police resources on.
Posted by: Toby, London on 12:44am Thu 23 Aug 07
About time the law was changed, no?
Imagine: you're sitting at a coffee shop with your laptop. A sign in the shop says 'free wi-fi' but when you try to connect you see two unsecured wireless networks, both with the default network names. How do you decide which to connect to? Pick the wrong one, and you have a criminal record.
About time the law was changed, no?
Imagine: you're sitting at a coffee shop with your laptop. A sign in the shop says 'free wi-fi' but when you try to connect you see two unsecured wireless networks, both with the default network names. How do you decide which to connect to? Pick the wrong one, and you have a criminal record.
Posted by: Andy, A legal wirelss 3G connection.... on 11:29am Thu 23 Aug 07
Utterly ridiculous - it will be illegal to read a newspaper over someone's shoulder next!! I'm also intrigued to know how a policeman is trained with the technical skills to establish that you are not using a 3G card or a legal wifi hotspot connection?
Utterly ridiculous - it will be illegal to read a newspaper over someone's shoulder next!! I'm also intrigued to know how a policeman is trained with the technical skills to establish that you are not using a 3G card or a legal wifi hotspot connection?
Posted by: imma on 11:58am Thu 23 Aug 07
hmm ...
the computer misuse act requires your knowledge that permission has not been given.
since (some) people have stated they leave their networks unprotected for the purpose of other people accessing them, this could be taken as permission
Possibly wishful thinking that people would make net access available for free *shrugs*
http://www.opsi.gov.
uk/acts/acts1990/ukp
ga_19900018_en_1#pb1
-l1g1
hmm ...
the computer misuse act requires your knowledge that permission has not been given.
since (some) people have stated they leave their networks unprotected for the purpose of other people accessing them, this could be taken as permission
Possibly wishful thinking that people would make net access available for free *shrugs*
http://www.opsi.gov.
uk/acts/acts1990/ukp
ga_19900018_en_1#pb1
-l1g1
Posted by: Andy Tweedy, Bangkok on 12:13pm Thu 23 Aug 07
I wounder did the police ask the owner of the unsecured WiFi access if he had a problem with someone using his WiFi
I think the world has gone crazy, it confims another reason why I don't live in the UK anymore
Too much political correctness and too much control
I wounder did the police ask the owner of the unsecured WiFi access if he had a problem with someone using his WiFi
I think the world has gone crazy, it confims another reason why I don't live in the UK anymore
Too much political correctness and too much control
Posted by: David Hughes, Bristol on 2:21pm Thu 23 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bob[/bold] wrote:
I\\\'m assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.[/quote] Bob, you should be a detective.[/quote] Agreed, that's like saying 'the backdoor was unlocked so I was quite justfied in making off with your valuables...'
Dave wrote:
Bob wrote:
I'm assuming that the police actually checked the laptop to see what exactly he was using the broadband for? The easiest way to download child **** untraced is to use someone elses broadband connection from a laptop, that way any downloads are tracked directly to the owner of the broadband connection.
Bob, you should be a detective.
Agreed, that's like saying 'the backdoor was unlocked so I was quite justfied in making off with your valuables...'
Posted by: Ludovic Windsor, Richmond on 9:10am Fri 24 Aug 07
This is pure madness, has police nothing better to do with taxpayer's money?
1. If you leave a WiFi connection unsecure, it's like consenting to share it
2. And getting free broadband is like taking an apple from a tree overhanging a public road.
Police should rather arrest mums who cross with buggies outside of pedestrians zebras: this is really dangerous!
This is pure madness, has police nothing better to do with taxpayer's money?
1. If you leave a WiFi connection unsecure, it's like consenting to share it
2. And getting free broadband is like taking an apple from a tree overhanging a public road.
Police should rather arrest mums who cross with buggies outside of pedestrians zebras: this is really dangerous!
Posted by: Lickyalips, Richmond on 2:47pm Fri 24 Aug 07
[bold]Another serious crime solved, then![/bold]
Another serious crime solved, then! Posted by: Mike Hart, London, UK on 9:41pm Fri 24 Aug 07
The network owner may well have been a public-spirited individual who has deliberately left his network open so visitors can check their email etc.
Putting aside the wisdom (or otherwise) or doing this - how was the visitor to know any different?
Also, when his laptop asked for a valid IP address to be issued, the wireless router did so. Surely this is 'permission asked for and granted'?
The network owner may well have been a public-spirited individual who has deliberately left his network open so visitors can check their email etc.
Putting aside the wisdom (or otherwise) or doing this - how was the visitor to know any different?
Also, when his laptop asked for a valid IP address to be issued, the wireless router did so. Surely this is 'permission asked for and granted'?
Posted by: Paul on 10:24pm Sat 25 Aug 07
Ummm, guys, er, what did he actually STEAL ?
Not electricity, or anything tangible either. He didn't steal the connection, because it's still in the owner's house. I'd like to see that one go to court . . .
Ummm, guys, er, what did he actually STEAL ?
Not electricity, or anything tangible either. He didn't steal the connection, because it's still in the owner's house. I'd like to see that one go to court . . .
Posted by: Jazzi on 5:04pm Fri 31 Aug 07
[quote]Ummm, guys, er, what did he actually STEAL ?
Not electricity, or anything tangible either. He didn't steal the connection, because it's still in the owner's house. I'd like to see that one go to court . [/quote] Good theory Paul. You should phone up the police and give them some advice coz ur right. No one actually nicked anything!
Ummm, guys, er, what did he actually STEAL ?
Not electricity, or anything tangible either. He didn't steal the connection, because it's still in the owner's house. I'd like to see that one go to court .
Good theory Paul. You should phone up the police and give them some advice coz ur right. No one actually nicked anything!
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
