Sparkingchip:

I remember some people were fined when WiFi first came about for standing in the street and using other people’s and businesses WiFi.

A person who—

(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and

(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,

is guilty of an offence.

Andy Millar:

I suspect a modern law (criminal or case law) would be more specifically about defrauding the provider.

The problem with this is that fraud is generally regarded as a more severe offence than theft. Therefore refusing to pay a £2000 phone bill could perversely end up as a more severe offence than stealing the tranceiver unit from a base station worth ten times as much  - plus all the inconvenience to users in the area.


I can vaguely remember reading something about a person who installed a 'black box' in their landline phone back in the era of Strowger telephone exchanges that resulted in callers having free calls (although outgoing calls were still charged unless the phone at the other end was also fitted with a 'black box') and how Post Office Telephones was considering charging him with fraud as it was impossible to charge him or the callers (who should have paid the bill but didn't) with theft. Because calls were not logged it was impossible to determine the amount of lost revenue.

Alasdair Anderson:

Most of the contributors to this forum are not employed by the IET and not in a position to answer to the IET's position, myself included. However I would expect that such behaviour would be considered contrary to the Engineering Council's Statement of Ethical Principles which are endorsed by the IET.

Alasdair

If that is the case, then does it also apply to non-payment of parking tickets issued by APCOA or city councils (they are not fines!!!) ?

Rob Eagle:

The old Strowger equipment, that was lovely stuff.

Rob Eagle:

The old Strowger equipment, that was lovely stuff.

It most certainly was. You haven't lived unless you have seen and heard a Strowger telephone exchange in operation.


The 'black box' I previously mentioned is for real. I have tested one out on a final selector and I can assure you that they do work.

Roy Bowdler:
There are working examples of Uniselectors at Bletchley Park, I went last time on an IET local network visit, which seem to come up every year or two.


I was trained to fault-find on our local private network telephone system (a power station) and later HV Grid protection equipment, which relied on pilot lines, usually rented from Post Office Telecom.  At that time relay based control systems were ubiquitous, although there was one system with printed circuit board based logic control, several large cabinets to achieve what a small PLC would do nowadays. I should relate that there was a real sense of satisfaction in identifying faults, using a combination of schematic drawings and often observations and a bit of “tinkering”.  The results could involve first having to free people trapped in a lift 150ft up, or safely dealing with a several ton load stuck in a dangerous position.


Returning to the main subject of non-payment , in my laypersons opinion, to be considered “criminal” there has to be clear prima facie evidence of an intent to dishonestly deprive some else of their property (or revenue).  There are many areas of service provision where suppliers seek to be exploitative or maximise profit and consumers legitimately seek to avoid being exploited. Hence various consumer protection legislation to balance the rights of the less powerful against exploitative practice.  As a “civil” issue (ie a commercial dispute) popular consumerism, led by sections of the media have become a well established counterbalance to exploitative or incompetent practices.


Touching on traffic or parking penalties. I was a “victim” of this several years ago.  I made a business visit by car with two colleagues to a facility in suburban West London. My two colleagues had travelled by Train/Tube, so at the end I offered to drop them off at the nearest station.  I was unfamiliar with the area as were they, but they recognised the return route and guided me. As I emerged from under a bridge they said “we’re here” so I slowed carefully pulled over and dropped them off. Unbeknown to me at the time, I had infringed a thick yellow line “bus stop” and was sent a penalty charge by the local authority.  Disputing the penalty, I was sent CCTV evidence (the camera seemed to be controlled by an operator) which showed clearly that a pedestrian had walked into the road from the opposite side taking my attention and that my rear seat passenger had begun to open the car door as I was still moving. I was stationary for less than 20 seconds and no other vehicle was nearby as a crossing behind me was on red. 


My appeal was rejected as was eventually the intervention of my MP.  The appeal adjudicator stated that my evidence was simply “mitigation” which was not something that they could take into consideration.  This in my opinion breaches the common law principle that the reasonable actions of a reasonable person are not a “crime”.  Obviously I did not commit a “crime” , but public bodies were still allowed to punish me.  It doesn’t matter about me and on the principle of “swings and roundabouts”, I have probably got away with many motoring infringements over the years. Police discretion and public toleration are quite important principles of how the law is actually applied.  Perhaps if money were no object, I could have employed a “Mr Loophole” lawyer, but it obviously wasn’t worth it. Had I impeded a bus, then my actions, albeit innocent, could be argued to be deserving of a penalty in the “public interest”.  

My concern is that powerful exploitative parties, in this case a London Local Authority and the legal system that constrains them is unbalanced such that evidence in defence can simply be dismissed as “mitigation” and therefore inadmissible.  Any thoughts welcome!