When you lend a person your gun and he goes on to shoot someone, you're not liable (in general; there are some notable exceptions). The question is whether the

When you lend a person your gun and he goes on to shoot someone, you're not liable (in general; there are some notable exceptions). The question is whether the thing you own was instrumental in the perpetration of the crime or whether it could have easily been replaced by another instance of the same thing. In case of the dog and the tile, it was the things themselves that caused the damage, unguided by a human. In case of the car, the law is there for convenience purposes: they can only trace it to you and to be able to fine speeding, it cannot be otherwise. Those seem like the usual cases, but they are actually special cases. The usual case is you lending a book, a glass of water, a gun. If someone uses the knowledge, the water or the gun to cause harm, they are liable. With ubiquitous free wifi, your AP is not instrumental in the perpetration of a crime. The criminal could easily have gone elsewhere; that makes you a non-accessory. Of course, IANAL. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term). I do not see how providing internet access could possibly make you an accessory to a crime.