🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT), bod43 <Bod43@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 11 June, 02:34, q...@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:
>> In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8in...@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas �<jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> " Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data
>> " from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International
>> " (PI).
>>
>> What garbage.
>>
>> 1) �Publically received radio while driving down a public street.
>> 2) �They didn't crack the encryption.
>> 3) �The content wasn't important.
>> 4) �They had no intent to turn all of that completely public unimportant
>> � � content into a criminal use.
>>
>> Those aren't "OR". �They are "AND".
>>
>> The people after Google are politicians (and those fooled by them),
>> not good citizens.
>
>I think that what google have done is probably illegal in the UK.
>Certainly I have read in the papers that some guy was convicted
>of sitting outside a house "borrowing" the WiFi.

Have there been any reports claiming that Google 'borrowed' any
bandwidth? All I've seen so far is that they might have created a log
of open AP's, which is basically a passive activity. I was going to
say it's hard to believe that would be illegal, but then you said
this:

>We have many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem
>impossible that Google are not in breach.

Sounds like the laws might be the bigger problem.