3 ms·
There's probably a reason for the fact that there has never been a criminal case such as you've described, and it's for that reason the above poster is safe in
by diminoten 12y ago
There's probably a reason for the fact that there has never been a criminal case such as you've described, and it's for that reason the above poster is safe in writing what he did.
- DanBC 12y agoSo, you ignore the bits of the Swartz case which were about his access of a network by spoofing MAC address and user agent? You also ignore all the "piggybacking" cases? Here are a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#Unite... Here's the Met Police saying that they intend to prosecute all such behaviour: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/us-britain-wireless-idUSL2287925020070822 http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/22/us-britain-wireles... Still: I'm not sure how you conclude that it is not fraud just because no-one has been to court yet.
- diminoten 12y agoRead what I wrote more carefully. I said that the same reasons why there has not been a court case are the reasons why the above commenter can safely write what he has written without fear of prosecution.