> My original question (if you read my posts carefully) is basically is this person a criminal?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (except of course when the court says it is). The default assumption someone should take is that they are not allowed to use a wifi connection they happen to come across - UNLESS they know it is a public hotspot.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (except of course when the court says it is). The default assumption someone should take is that they are not allowed to use a wifi connection they happen to come across - UNLESS they know it is a public hotspot.