Re: Davenport Lyons - Watchdog Report

Norman Wells wrote:

Well at least you admit now that there isn't a legitimate way of me
having full knowledge of traffic via that connection. Now, having
established that I have no way of stopping such a thing happening, are
you still in favour of an interpretation of the law which
automatically makes me a guilty party?

Yes, actually, because the situation you describe is wholly unacceptable. You are creating a class of individuals who can do anything they like over the internet with absolute impunity. That's just not healthy. If you were made responsible, you'd soon enough find ways of limiting your liabilty.

Its unnaceptable to _you_, Norm. The rest of society, gutter dwellers like DL excepted, seem to find it an entirely acceptable situation.

I've not, and even were your insinuations true I _still_ wouldn't
have. Remember, its not illegal for me to be the renter of a
connection where someone else broke the law.

That is a point that still needs to be determined and ruled upon. There is a plausible argument that says the owner of the internet
connection should be responsible for whatever goes on over it. If
that is decided, what will you do then?

I will not do anything at all, Norm. Because my contract with the
authority underwrites any losses made as a result of doing my job, so
any potential losses would be theirs.

That's civil losses. How about potential criminal charges? How will they save you then?

What criminal charges? Even were your bizarre desires achieved and subscribers liable for their connection, this would still be a *civil* wrong. And if you're talking about the other pap you spouted about potential genuine offences committed, there is no law on statute in the UK for which you can be convicted despite having no knowledge of the crime or an ability to stop it.

Which they would of course pass
on to you in the form of a higher drain on public resources next
year. In essense, then, the taxpayer would foot the bill. All of that
is theoretical, though, because I cant imagine for a moment DL going
up against a local authority :)

They wouldn't need to. Because they only target people who they think will pay up.

S'okay, Norm. I corrected your mistake in the previous sentence.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Davenport Lyons - Watchdog Report
    ... Are you suggesting that a higher standard needs to be met to have ... What the law is isn't up to you though. ... having full knowledge of traffic via that connection. ... any potential losses would be theirs. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Davenport Lyons - Watchdog Report
    ... you're not fit to be letting anyone have access to ... the opportunity for them to break the law. ... I reckon even you'd struggle with that argument, Norm! ... You have no control at all therefore over what goes on over your interenet connection. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • NEWS: Wi-Fi guidance becomes law in California
    ... secure on wireless connections. ... The law now awaits signature by ... Terminator turns into Girly Man over Wi-Fi bill ... connection to browse the Internet if the owner of the Wi-Fi ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: Davenport Lyons - Watchdog Report
    ... the opportunity for them to break the law. ... share using my connection. ... consistently stupid Norm, I'll give you that. ... that do not permit indiscriminate access. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Have I found a way of achieving high speed internet connection or not?
    ... the law, and find loop holes to justify their behavior. ... If I hadn't spoken with my neighbor, ... >Internet connection is a crime. ... >car is illegal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)