WIFI from neighbour and low!??

[Rabs]

i remember a story:

one neighbour said to another, "yesterday, a delicious smell was coming out of your house. another neighbour said, "so you smelled it! now you gotta pay for it"

[Tiwaz]

You right about the first part (nobody gives a crap about my considerations). If you'd be as perceptive as you are strong in your opinions you might have noticed that the courts whose opinion actually matters (the higher level courts) are known often not give a crap of the opinion of the district courts either. We have one district court that has given its judgment in a certain kind of case where the law has never been applied before. Loud proclamation that THIS IS THE LAW might wait until we have an appeals court decision or possibly even one from the supreme court.

You might notice couple things...

First, Finland does not play with angloamerican "court decides first case and is then referred to it as rule"-system. Our courts do not interpret laws nearly as far as anglo court system does.

Second, could you point out which higher level court has overruled this decision?

Until it has, sentence holds.

It is not very impressive that after making so bold assertions about the law(tm) you quote both by example and reference the wrong part it. No court has claimed this has anything to do with privacy (section 24). If any crime has been committed in these kind of cases then it is a violation against section 28 (unauthorized use).

I pulled first one that came up from the top of my head. Which regards to privacy.
Was there with the issue of you saying that if it leaves the house it is free to use.
Which, as it is notable with section 24 and visible light, clearly is not true.

[Mook]

i remember a story:

one neighbour said to another, "yesterday, a delicious smell was coming out of your house. another neighbour said, "so you smelled it! now you gotta pay for it"

How about another story?

One neighbour said to another, "yesterday, there was a lovely wlan signal coming out of your house. The other said, "yes, and I had a very entertaining time reading your email"

Sometimes I leave my WLAN open, for a bit of fun...

[Rabs]

i remember a story:

one neighbour said to another, "yesterday, a delicious smell was coming out of your house. another neighbour said, "so you smelled it! now you gotta pay for it"

How about another story?

One neighbour said to another, "yesterday, there was a lovely wlan signal coming out of your house. The other said, "yes, and I had a very entertaining time reading your email"

Sometimes I leave my WLAN open, for a bit of fun...

interestingly, this raises another issue.... is it legal/illegal to peep into someone else's emails/computers without permission? i think this should call for greater punishment than getting a free ride on just some astray signal.

it would be interesting to see what the laws are regarding all these stuffs.

[Rip]

Our courts do not interpret laws nearly as far as anglo court system does.

If they did not interpret at all, we would not need a three level court system, would we?

Second, could you point out which higher level court has overruled this decision?

None of course yet. But based on the material in the link in my previous post an appeal was made and is waiting to be processed. Note, I'm not saying it will be overruled - merely that it is untested territory and a mere district court decision should not be put too much weight.


--- and then for something different---

is it legal/illegal to peep into someone else's emails/computers without permission?

Reading somebody's emails without permission is the same as reading their letters without permission, a clear violation of a law. Don't tell me you've missed all the talk about "Lex Nokia" - where the background is that as the under the present laws not even your employer has a right to look in to emails you have sent using your work computer and email system?

[Rabs]

is it legal/illegal to peep into someone else's emails/computers without permission?

Reading somebody's emails without permission is the same as reading their letters without permission, a clear violation of a law. Don't tell me you've missed all the talk about "Lex Nokia" - where the background is that as the under the present laws not even your employer has a right to look in to emails you have sent using your work computer and email system?

but mind you, the point i raised here is about the two unknown entities who are without any contract concluded for mutual benefits between them and code of conducts!

[raamv]

i remember a story:

one neighbour said to another, "yesterday, a delicious smell was coming out of your house. another neighbour said, "so you smelled it! now you gotta pay for it"

How about another story?

One neighbour said to another, "yesterday, there was a lovely wlan signal coming out of your house. The other said, "yes, and I had a very entertaining time reading your email"

Sometimes I leave my WLAN open, for a bit of fun...

interestingly, this raises another issue.... is it legal/illegal to peep into someone else's emails/computers without permission? i think this should call for greater punishment than getting a free ride on just some astray signal.
If suspected....yes...then it is illegal.when proved..


it would be interesting to see what the laws are regarding all these stuffs.

[Tiwaz]

If they did not interpret at all, we would not need a three level court system, would we?

They do not interpret the law, they determine your guilt in breaking it.

It is quite a difference even if it does not appear so.

You see, in Finnish (based on French court system IIRC like most of Europe) previous decisions of courts have far less weight than in ango system.
English court system relies heavily on earlier cases, while French system can handle each case as separate issue and thus give completely different sentence.

None of course yet. But based on the material in the link in my previous post an appeal was made and is waiting to be processed. Note, I'm not saying it will be overruled - merely that it is untested territory and a mere district court decision should not be put too much weight.

Why would any appeals court or higher court make any different decision?

You are breaking the law by using property of someone else. We have established in other sections of crime law that being able to do something from your own premises is not going to make it legal, mentioned use of light coming from another apartment to film them without permission.
So why would other kind of EM radiation being taken advantage of without permission be any different?

[Rip]

but mind you, the point i raised here is about the two unknown entities who are without any contract concluded for mutual benefits between them and code of conducts!

Sorry, I don't quite get you here(?). Anyway, emails are considered like letters private communications and reading without either senders or recipients permission breaks the law.

Regarding "the other legal issues" in this thread, stating that Finnish courts do not interpret the law at all (and I never claimed they do it the same extend than Anglo-American courts) would be a quite surprise to Finnish courts themselves ( http://www.kko.fi/29537.htm ). From my behalf I'd rather bury this part of conversation - if there is interest it may be resurrected when have a "lainvoimainen" appeal court decision (or somebody spots info that no appeal was made in the case afterall)