3 ms·
Well, no, if the law says "anyone can run open wifi, and any suspicious use there should be investigated, and not just taken as read that the person who owns th
by dave2000 10y ago
Well, no, if the law says "anyone can run open wifi, and any suspicious use there should be investigated, and not just taken as read that the person who owns the wifi is the user of it" then the moment permission is sought to raid the place it should be denied immediately until there's some evidence the person running the wifi also committed the crime. If that's written into the law; if at the point a warrant is sought, or if at the start of a court case the defence can just say "this case should be tossed out; you aren't allowed to go after people running free wifi" then there would be no point in going after the people providing free wifi. After all, no-one goes after the ISPs.
- ascagnel_ 10y agoExcept that there is evidence to show that the specific equipment was used to commit a crime. You'd be hard-pressed to provide a legal standard that prevented police from obtaining permission from a court to seize that evidence as part of their investigation, even if the owner isn't implicated. It's not too dissimilar from a shop owner being forced to give up security camera footage -- the owner is not being targeted in the investigation, and there's plenty of unrelated footage, but there is a high likelihood of relevant evidence existing.