Do you share your Wirless connection?

[andypaul]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...rist_email/://

Worth bearing in mind what can happen if people use a open access point.

[walesrob]

Page not found Andy.

[joebloggs]

also

'There's been a great deal of dithering over whether Wi-Fi piggybacking is really a crime. In the UK, BT had originally prohibited connection-sharing, but then encouraged its customers to do just that as part of its deal with WiFi sharing company Fon.

A man from Chiswick, west London, was even arrested last August for using someone's unsecured connection while sitting on a wall outside their home, though the Met Police argued it wasn't part of a wider crackdown.

Two men were arrested in Northumbria last month for checking their emails and surfing seemingly innocent websites on someone else's connection. Police confirmed it was an offence, but released the pair on bail pending further enquiries'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...iggyback_bill/

so in the usa its ok, but here in the uk you can be arrested , how many people have the default s/w settings, that thier wifi connects to the strongest signal ? or searches for another network if theirs is unavailable..

doesn't mention charges, but i guess they were told off, the police have time for this, but not for credit card fraud, phishing and scam mails

[joebloggs]

Page not found Andy.

i guess it was this link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...rrorist_email/

[andypaul]

Page not found Andy.

also

'There's been a great deal of dithering over whether Wi-Fi piggybacking is really a crime. In the UK, BT had originally prohibited connection-sharing, but then encouraged its customers to do just that as part of its deal with WiFi sharing company Fon.

A man from Chiswick, west London, was even arrested last August for using someone's unsecured connection while sitting on a wall outside their home, though the Met Police argued it wasn't part of a wider crackdown.

Two men were arrested in Northumbria last month for checking their emails and surfing seemingly innocent websites on someone else's connection. Police confirmed it was an offence, but released the pair on bail pending further enquiries'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...iggyback_bill/

so in the usa its ok, but here in the uk you can be arrested , how many people have the default s/w settings, that thier wifi connects to the strongest signal ? or searches for another network if theirs is unavailable..

doesn't mention charges, but i guess they were told off, the police have time for this, but not for credit card fraud, phishing and scam mails

Indeed simply having the genric names and orignal SSId store in your wirless application ends up with my laptop picking them up when im not trying to find them.
Can think of a few places in London where they leave Wirless connections open.
One famous one is the welcome trust in euston road with many unis around it you often see students hanging around it picking up their mail for free.

Me i walk inside and sit down in the cafe and use it.

So maybe joe you should point your aerial in the direction of Londooon?

i guess it was this link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...rrorist_email/

Well done gold star

[doonat]

sounds like i dont have to subscribe for a connection when i get there filipinos love free stuff!

[joebloggs]

so you could be committing a crime and not know you have

i suppose its like stealing your neighbours waters or lecky, but you would have to physically steal it, so you would know


cannot believe people have been nick for it.. madness

it reminds me of the news story i read the other day, a guy took a picture of a cop car with his mobile that was parked on double yellow lines at a bus stop (nothing more me off than that, people just stop their and go into the shop, causing problems for the bus drivers,should be instant points and a fine )

and the cops saw him, asked him what he was doing, he told them, he had taken the picture because he thought they were illegally parked, and they questioned him under anti-terror laws

so next time the traffic warden is giving you a ticket, how about doing a citizen arrest and using the anti-terror laws, asking why they want to take a pic of your car, as a picture could pose a security risk. , how could it pose a security risk, bit obvious it a police car, with 'police' written on it


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-20676608/

[A_flyer]

I'm not sharing my connection and I'm not willing to.

With the laws under preparation on the illegal downloading (where they may cut your internet connection ). I don't want to take any risk.

So no open line, even for internet phones, at my house.

When I look on the active WiFi in my subdivision, I can count 13 network alive around my house. All are closed too...

[pennybarry]

so you could be committing a crime and not know you have

i suppose its like stealing your neighbours waters or lecky, but you would have to physically steal it, so you would know


cannot believe people have been nick for it.. madness

it reminds me of the news story i read the other day, a guy took a picture of a cop car with his mobile that was parked on double yellow lines at a bus stop (nothing more me off than that, people just stop their and go into the shop, causing problems for the bus drivers,should be instant points and a fine )

and the cops saw him, asked him what he was doing, he told them, he had taken the picture because he thought they were illegally parked, and they questioned him under anti-terror laws

so next time the traffic warden is giving you a ticket, how about doing a citizen arrest and using the anti-terror laws, asking why they want to take a pic of your car, as a picture could pose a security risk. , how could it pose a security risk, bit obvious it a police car, with 'police' written on it


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-20676608/

I read restrictictions about photography in the UK.

Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK
A brief guide for street photographers.
urban75, 5th June 2008

Despite the law being clear on a citizen's rights to freely take pictures in public places (with a few restrictions) there is growing evidence of the police, police community support officers (PCSOs), security guards and general jobsworths failing to respect the rights of photographers going about their lawful business.

Following on from our recent article on UK photographers protesting about increasing police harassment, this article hopes to outline your legal rights as a photographer, whether you're taking snaps on a mobile phone camera or wielding a monster Nikon about.

Some material in this article has been sourced from the excellent - nay, indispensable - UK Photographers Rights website, which offers a downloadable PDF info file and ongoing legal feedback giving advice to photographers' questions. We strongly recommend you visit the site.

We've detailed some of the common points below, but bear in mind that this is intended purely as a rough outline of your rights and not a definitive legal statement. Some aspects of the law can be complex, changing and open to interpretation - with Scottish law sometimes carrying a different spin on clauses - so always seek proper legal advice if you get into trouble.

Street shots

If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely).

DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."

There's nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in pubic places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there's a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace.

Harassment is defined as a 'course of conduct' (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person 'alarm or distress', but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.

Photographers are free to use their photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.


Photographing children

There are no laws against taking photos of children, but someone taking an unhealthy interest can rightly expect to attract unwelcome attention from the authorities (and quite probably passers by) pretty sharpish.

Be also mindful that if you're taking pictures in areas where dodgy folks, drug dealers and ne'er do wells may be in view, they're unlikely to be pleased with the attention and probably won't be bothered about the niceties of the law in their response.

If someone asks you to stop take pictures of them, it's generally a good idea to do so.

Note: Professional photography is banned in London's Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square as well as the Royal Parks. If you start breaking out the tripods, glampussy models, make up crew, Winnebagos and huge lights and reflectors, expect a parkie to turn up on the scene pronto demanding a hefty fee. However, be a little more low key with your shooting and you should have no problems.


Photographing Buildings, Football Grounds and Interiors
Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside).

However, if you're standing on private property and the landowner/occupier objects, then they have every right to request that you stop immediately and ask you to leave if you refuse.

Many museums, art galleries, football grounds, concert venues and similar places ban photography as a condition of entry, so you can hardly complain if you get turfed out after you've whipped out your camera.

The same applies to all private property open to the public in general - e.g. offices, shops, even your local chippy - with the owner or occupier having the right to demand that you stop taking photos and get the hell out.

Most shopping centres and malls stand on private land with many gaining a notorious reputation for speedily dispatching stroppy security guards demanding that you stop taking photos.

The irony that they're already busy filming you from every angle via a flotilla of CCTV cameras is generally lost on them.


Tube stations
Seeing as we've heard so many instances of people being hassled over this, here's the low down: non-commercial photography on tube stations is most certainly allowed - and if any busybody tries to tell you different, politely tell them to bury their head in part 10 of rule Sa109 in the Working Reference Manual:

10.1 Passengers can take photographs with small cameras for private purposes, provided flashlights and/or tripods are not used no obstruction or inconvenience is caused to staff and/or passengers.


Trespass
If you start stomping over private property taking photos without permission, you're committing a trespass, and the same applies to anyone who "interferes" with the property.

The "interference" law is a bit of a daft one and can be used for something as trivial as scrambling up a bit of wall to take a photo over the top or even resting your camera on a fence.

If you've been given access to property on the condition that your camera stays firmly in your bag, the second you start snapping you're no longer entitled to be on the land and are thus guilty of trespass (Scottish law differs in this regard).

Landowners, occupiers, security guards and bouncers etc are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to prevent a trespasser entering their property and they can also use reasonable force to eject a trespasser who is refusing to leave their land, but the law is very strict about what constitutes reasonable force.

This means that almost any violent attack would be unreasonable under the law, as would threatening someone with a knife, club, Ninja sword, Nunchaku, AK47, thermo-nuclear device or any other weapon.

Note: Property owners or their employees and security staff have no right whatsoever to confiscate or damage a photographer's camera or insist that images are deleted.


Obstruction, Public Order and Photographing Demos
Under UK law, it's a criminal offence to obstruct free passage on the highway and this includes footways, bike paths and roads.

If you're standing on a thoroughfare to grab a photograph and you're not impeding the movement of traffic or people to any degree, then you're absolutely within the law. Sadly, some protest photographers will be familiar with the Old Bill tactic of claiming that they're causing an obstruction in often the most frivolous of circumstances.


It may be a pain, but it's usually best to move yo' ass when asked as it's not uncommon for innocent photographers to be arrested for obstruction at demos - or even get their collars felt for supposedly obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

Taking photographs is unlikely to amount to a 'breach of the peace' or be seen as 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace', but if you're stuck in the thick of a heated demo or street riot, you'll have to be careful that the police don't confuse you with the participants and treat you accordingly.


Deleting images
Security guards do not have stop and search powers or the right to seize your equipment or delete images or confiscate film under any circumstances. In some circumstances, the police may grab your film or memory cards but they are still not authorised to delete any images. After all, if you've committed an offence the images would act as evidence, and if you haven't broken the law, the images are innocent.

If you've a photojournalist card, wear it on a tabard so you can easily show it to the police if challenged, but if you're a freelancer you might find it harder to convince the cops that you're not one of the rampaging hordes.

The best advice is to keep your eyes open and to speedily back off when the police start to charge your way.

Note that there is no law preventing you taking photographs of the police at demos, unless there are any overriding security/law enforcement concerns.


Breach of the Peace
Another legal catch-all sometimes employed by the police against photographers refusing to leave a scene when doing their job is, "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace."

We can't think of any successful prosecutions of press photographers under this law, but it has certainly been used on occasion Police sued over stolen cameras.


Some legal precedents:

In R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done." while in DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party.

This could apply to a photographer hassling people in such a manner that he/she might elicit a violent response from those around them, although we'd suggest that this kind of offence would be extremely rare. Our advice would be to retire at a rate of knots when threatened with an arrest under breach of the peace.

People and Privacy
UK laws are fairly vague when it comes to defining what constitutes an invasion of privacy, but while street shots should cause no problem, you might get in hot water if you're strapping on colossal telephoto lens and zooming in on folks stripping off in their bathrooms - even if you are snapping from a public place.

The key seems to be whether the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a statement that seems vague enough to keep a team of lawyers gainfully employed for some time.

With some countries having stronger privacy laws, UK snappers looking to commercially exploit images of recognisable people snapped without their consent may find international clients unenthusiastic unless a model release has been obtained.

There's also a remote chance that photographs of people in public places may be subject to the Data Protection Act, but that's pretty unlikely if there's no other identifying information accompanying the image.

Update: According to this blog, Home Office Minister Tony McNulty MP has commented on the current legal situation regarding privacy.

"There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and Police Community Support Officers are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places, and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable.

However decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should also be addressed to the force concerned."


Anti Terrorism measures
With the increasing paranoia over security and terrorism, photographers being have been increasingly challenged by police when taking photographs of potentially sensitive subjects like power stations, refineries, bridges and ports.

Photographers taking innocent photos of such places may find themselves being questioned about the nature of the business and the purpose of their photos, with the police citing the Official Secrets Act 1911 (that's pushing it) or the handy catch-all of The Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44 has been erroneously used several times by PCSOs to take details of photographers deemed to be acting 'suspiciously').

Unless you've crawled into a nuclear bunker and have been caught red handed taking photos of things marked 'TOP SECRET' it's unlikely that you've actually broken any laws.

However, if you're snapping in an area that could be deemed sensitive, it's generally wisest to calmly answer their questions and put up with them rummaging through your camera bag - but remember they have no right to seize your equipment or demand that memory cards are deleted/confiscated.

For press photographers, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national police-press guidelines makes their rights clear:

"Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and [police officers] have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record."

"It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

The guidelines also warn that any police officer who deletes a photographer's images could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action.


Your rights on arrest
If you are arrested, keep calm and do not panic. Remember that you have the right to be treated fairly and with respect by the police.

When you are arrested you do not have to say anything to the police. But if you are later charged with a crime and you have not mentioned, when questioned, something that you later rely on in court, then this may be taken into account when deciding if you are guilty.

We suggest you respond with:

"I have been advised that I should answer no questions. It is not right that I should have to give a complete case for my self until charges have been made and properly explained and until there are other people around to check that questions put to me are fair and legal. I will say nothing until I am advised to do so by a fully qualified legal advisor."

There may be good reasons why you do not wish to say anything to the police, and you should not be intimidated into answering questions. Get a solicitor down to see you in the police station as soon as possible.

Remember that it is wise not to discuss the case with the police until you have consulted privately with a solicitor. If the police are about to arrest you or have already arrested you, there is no such thing as a 'friendly chat' to sort things out. Anything you say can later be used against you. Think before you talk.


Innocent photographer or terrorist?
By Tom Geoghegan 17 April 2008

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.

Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.

The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.

After explaining he didn't need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.
To be pulled out of a crowd is very daunting and I wasn't aware of my rights

Phil Smith

"People were still taking photos with mobile phones and pocket cameras, so maybe it was because mine looked like a professional camera with a flash on top," he says.

"I wasn't very pleased because I was taken through the crowd and through the barriers at the front and people were probably thinking 'I wonder what he was doing.'

"To be pulled out of a crowd is very daunting and I wasn't aware of my rights.

"It's a sad state of affairs today if an amateur photographer can't stand in the street taking photographs."


'Crazy' officials

But he's not the only snapper to fall foul of the authorities while innocently pursuing a hobby or working.

There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails


Austin Mitchell MP
Austin Mitchell MP has tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights.

Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes.

"There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this."

Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible.

"If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business."


Furtive photos
Steve Carroll was another hapless victim of this growing suspicion. Police seized the film from his camera while he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre. They later returned it but a police investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be taking photographs covertly.

And photography enthusiast Adam Jones has started an online petition on the Downing Street website urging the prime minister to clarify the law. It has gained hundreds of supporters.

He says it has become increasingly difficult to take photos in public places because of terrorism fears.

Holidaymakers to some overseas destinations will be familiar with this sort of attitude - travel guides frequently caution readers that innocently posing for a snapshot outside a government building could lead to some stern questions from local law enforcers.

But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law?

"If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine." Everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns

Stewart Gibson
Bureau of Freelance Photographers

There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence.

And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.

Child protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism.

"They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this."

It seems to be increasing, he says.

"There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned.

"If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."

Complaint
The National Union of Journalists has staged a demo to highlight how media photographers are wrongly challenged by police.

In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident.

Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly.

And there was one consolation for Mr Smith as he trudged home while lamenting the shots of Letitia Dean that never were - she didn't turn up anyway.

[A_flyer]

so you could be committing a crime and not know you have

Yes and you will be prosecuted as they are filing a case against the owner of the internet subscription...
They don't mind who did the crime unless YOU can prove who it is.... That's call FREEDOM!

[KeithD]

I'm off to Iran....land of the free

[joebloggs]

Yes and you will be prosecuted as they are filing a case against the owner of the internet subscription...
They don't mind who did the crime unless YOU can prove who it is.... That's call FREEDOM!

well next time i change my isp, i'm going to register it in my dogs name, and see how daft the cops look when my dog appears in court , whoof justice

everyday our civil and humans rights are vanishing, your fined if you park in the wrong place, fine for not putting your dustbin out the right day, or the lid is not shut, fined for dropping litter, cannot take pics of your kids in a swimming pool sports day, more restrictions and controls on visa's, the list is endless .orwells 1984 is slowly coming true, the gov is watching you .i thought the court of human rights was for the benefit of it's citizens, not govs and corporate companies

[andypaul]

sounds like i dont have to subscribe for a connection when i get there filipinos love free stuff!

As A flyer says very few open networks where you really want them, ie when your at home. Some office/workplaces i know have both a vistors network which you need a password for and the truely nice ones a seperate one for workers (for email on phones) as most companies ban web mail on ther own systems. One large insurance firm i know of blocks all ports apart from email related ones ie 25,110,143,465,993,995.

I saw some yank tourists the other day near paddington and the teenager son said to his dad "all the connections are locked around here" they both seem surprised and shoocked so it mst be far more common in the US.

[johncar54]

Having read the above I am so glad I retired from the police 20 years ago.. In those days we tried really hard to prosecute real criminal who were harming others, it seems now that the 'overworked' police prefer to find any 'crime' which will not over tax them and take up as little time as possible.

PS Hope they can't trace me and stop my pension !!!

[andypaul]

well next time i change my isp, i'm going to register it in my dogs name, and see how daft the cops look when my dog appears in court , whoof justice

everyday our civil and humans rights are vanishing, your fined if you park in the wrong place, fine for not putting your dustbin out the right day, or the lid is not shut, fined for dropping litter, cannot take pics of your kids in a swimming pool sports day, more restrictions and controls on visa's, the list is endless .orwells 1984 is slowly coming true, the gov is watching you .i thought the court of human rights was for the benefit of it's citizens, not govs and corporate companies

Surely Joe if your Kids or the Dog were nicked by the police you would be responsible?

So use next doors dog

[joebloggs]

kids are minors andy and the dog will never grass on me

there is no law that says your wireless network has to be secure, and if some lowlife scouser happens to download copyrighted material thru my wireless router , i am not responsible for someone else's actions

[keithAngel]

kids are minors andy and the dog will never grass on me

there is no law that says your wireless network has to be secure, and if some lowlife scouser happens to download copyrighted material thru my wireless router , i am not responsible for someone else's actions

Agree completely Joe

[andypaul]

kids are minors andy and the dog will never grass on me

there is no law that says your wireless network has to be secure, and if some lowlife scouser happens to download copyrighted material thru my wireless router , i am not responsible for someone else's actions

You would let your dog go to jail for you

Can you hide a saw in a bone

Of course thats the new defence a lot of people are using not sure if its been tested. Its not ilegal to leave it unsecure but mightly foolish imho.

For a start make sure all your ports are locked down. Im sure you would not leave them open, but some people leave sharing open and alsorts. once they do that and if your using private network ip as most adsl routers do..

Copyrighted material is one thing if some pedo used your connection I dont think I would wanna go though all the accusations and stigma which would come with being associated with those scumbags.

Thats if you ever were able to prove it was someone else. I would think that surely the law would come down on the side that your responsible otherwise pedos would just have open networks and say someone else commited the act of downloading or uploading ilegal material?

For that one reason i really dont care if people download warez all day its their choice, but i would be happy if they said all routers had to be locked down to at least stop the defence for pedos. But then I guess you would have a loophole where they would say oh well some one must have cracked the encryption which is possible with just about every version on the market with varying levels of difficulty.

[joebloggs]

Thats if you ever were able to prove it was someone else.

i would have thought it would have to be proved that i did it, simple as that.

[A_flyer]

i am not responsible for someone else's actions

In this case you are. It's the owner of the line that will be fine or prosecuted. That's the aim of the new laws on the illegal downloading... (they have the same ideas here in France).

[A_flyer]

i would have thought it would have to be proved that i did it, simple as that.

Welcome to the RIAA freedom...

[joebloggs]

In this case you are. It's the owner of the line that will be fine or prosecuted. That's the aim of the new laws on the illegal downloading... (they have the same ideas here in France).

just read a story today about a woman accused of putting the wrong rubbish in her recycled bin.. and she was cleared because

'magistrates said the prosecution had been unable to prove that she was responsible for the contamination.

Her solicitor Mark Shell earlier told the court: "There is no CCTV, no video evidence and no independent witnesses to say that she is responsible.

"But someone clearly put it there. Who? That's not our problem." '

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5165148.stm

so for anyone accused of file sharing on a unsecured wireless network, then this is your defence..

what's happened to my WPA-PSK and SSID settings on me router , they've gone, i wonder when they vanished

[A_flyer]

what's happened to my WPA-PSK and SSID settings on me router , they've gone, i wonder when they vanished

Keith may be, after getting car radios he's getting also the WiFi systems...

[joebloggs]

Keith may be, after getting car radios he's getting also the WiFi systems...

never mind wifi, what about bluetooth, i've just seen a program for S60 2nd-3rd mobile devices that

Once connected to a another phone via bluetooth you can:
- read his messages
- read his contacts
- change profile
- play his ringtone even if phone is on silent
- play his songs(in his phone)
- restart the phone
- switch off the phone
- restore factory settings
- change ringing volume
- And here comes the best
"Call from his phone" it includes all call functions like hold etc. (if you don't like your boss, a few hours worth of calls to scousers keiths premium party lines might get you a bit of revenge

Works very well on sony ericsson phones[TESTED]

well my bluetooth is always disabled thou

[A_flyer]

That's why you should never leave a BlueTooth not secured... Some leave the auto connect function active!

[joebloggs]

also just seen a program where you can change you MAC address

might be useful for those naughty people who share stuff , i mean youmight as well get a portable and use that, hide it in next doors garden

[andypaul]

also just seen a program where you can change you MAC address

might be useful for those naughty people who share stuff , i mean youmight as well get a portable and use that, hide it in next doors garden

lol


Easy to impersonate a mac address which is why those who use access control on routers are wasting there time. Just as Ssid hiding a waste of time. As are most forms of encryption avaiable at present so easy to break or read its not worth the bother.

LOL so just leave unlocked or use a wire

[andypaul]

never mind wifi, what about bluetooth, i've just seen a program for S60 2nd-3rd mobile devices that

Once connected to a another phone via bluetooth you can:
- read his messages
- read his contacts
- change profile
- play his ringtone even if phone is on silent
- play his songs(in his phone)
- restart the phone
- switch off the phone
- restore factory settings
- change ringing volume
- And here comes the best
"Call from his phone" it includes all call functions like hold etc. (if you don't like your boss, a few hours worth of calls to scousers keiths premium party lines might get you a bit of revenge

Works very well on sony ericsson phones[TESTED]

well my bluetooth is always disabled thou

many how hours wind up of work mate

Many leave on for headsets or car handsfree

Its amazing how many people do leave there bluetooth on in public places.

Remeber that SMS where your partners bank details were texted to you by your partner or similar senstive info etc.

Worth bearing in mind

[joebloggs]

Remeber that SMS where your partners bank details were texted to you by your partner or similar senstive info etc.

yes, i still have that text your misses sent you andy with you bank details, i'm just waiting til your pay day til i transfer it all to the phils

[andypaul]

yes, i still have that text your misses sent you andy with you bank details, i'm just waiting til your pay day til i transfer it all to the phils

Umm some how i dont think your bluetooth reception will reach sunny london

Or do you have a racing pigeon flying over london with an extension

Looks like I have to send up the cockney sparrows to check out the airspace for intruders