|
Many people see piggybacking as a
harmless way to get free WiFi. But it is against the
law.
The latest arrest for illegally using a
private WiFi broadband connection took place in August. A man was
found using his laptop in the street and admitted to using
unsecured broadband from an adjacent house - an act known as
piggybacking. The man was bailed to return last month, the
prosecution being run by the Metropolitan Police computer crime
unit (MPCCU).
The first, and only, conviction for such an
offence was handed down in 2005, resulting in a £500 fine, the
confiscation of the perpetrator's laptop and a 12-month conditional
discharge. Then, as at present, the maximum penalty was six months
in jail and/or a fine of up to £5,000. Other recent arrests have
led to cautions.
The latest arrest took place for an offence
under section 125 of the Communications Act 2003, which states that
"a person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communication
service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge
applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an
offence". The MPCCU will also be attempting to apply section 1 of
the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which states that an offence will be
committed where a person causes a computer to access a program
knowing this access is unauthorised.
Any attempt to classify WiFi piggybacking as
theft would appear to be challenging. Under section 1 of the Theft
Act 1968, "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it". It would be difficult to argue that a WiFi
"thief" intends to "permanently deprive" the subscriber of the
connection.
Public opinion on whether piggybacking should
be a criminal offence remains split, and it may be some time before
even the technologically astute decide how much respect to give to
these laws. Web loggers seem to agree that consistent abuse of an
unsecured private WiFi connection is morally reprehensible, but
that casual use by passing piggybackers should be allowed. However,
the acts provide no such grey areas and the MPCCU appears
determined to follow the letter of the law.
The existence of unsecured network connections
means it is possible to accidentally jump on to someone else's
connection or to mistake a private (illegal) connection for a
public (legal) one. As the acts require an intention to commit the
offences, a streetwise piggybacker could easily avoid prosecution
by claiming that either of these possibilities applied to him.
One might ask why unsecured WiFi connections
exist at all, and a lack of knowledge among consumers appears to be
a factor in this. Some might also argue that those who make and
supply PCs, laptops and WiFi services should be responsible for
ensuring their customers' security. It could even be argued that
the producers of laptops and software which automatically seek out
the nearest WiFi connection are "aiding and abetting" the
piggybackers.
Internet service providers have the most to
lose when potential customers resort to piggybacking. Most ISPs
will include a clause in their contract that the consumer is not to
share their connection with neighbours. Those whose neighbours are
piggybacking would technically be in breach of contract, but it
seems unlikely that an ISP would take action unless there was clear
evidence that the subscriber was actively inviting others to share
the connection for payment.
Clearly this is an area of ongoing debate.
While many people see piggybacking as a harmless activity, it is
illegal. However, as more and more consumers wise-up to the risk of
their computers being hacked, it is likely that unsecured WiFi
connections will become less prevalent. This, along with the
introduction of free access WiFi into some town centres and WiFi
broadband access in cafes and coffee shops may mean that the issue
may well go away without police intervention.
|