Man arrested for charging phone on train

Electricity sockets on Overground trains are clearly marked with the words: “cleaners use only and not for public use”.
Click to expand...
I don't see the problem. He was stealing.
 
The sockets on the London overground trains are clearly labelled for a particular use, charging your own personal communication device I wouldn't regard as cleaning equipment.

Further more it reads like the man was rather argumentative and turned aggressive. Heck if anything the pcso did him a favour as the surge could have damaged his device easily.

A big story about nothing really.
 
Love this at the tail-end of the report...

Last week, 19-year-old Nick Silvestri hit the headlines in New York after jumping on stage before a Broadway play in an attempt to charge his phone – at a fake socket which was part of the set. He said his phone had 5% left as “girls were calling all day”.
Click to expand...

It's a different world out there :thinking:
 
cambsno said:
So who has never stolen unsecured wifi access?

There is theft and theft!
Click to expand...

I think one problem might be if the public are allowed to use the outlets and something goes bang not only is the carriage then out of use but the public will then be straight on the phone to the no win no fee lawyers.
 
woof woof said:
I think one problem might be if the public are allowed to use the outlets and something goes bang not only is the carriage then out of use but the public will then be straight on the phone to the no win no fee lawyers.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree, it is clear that people can't be bothered to read and possible the best action would be to make those sockets that aren't to be used inaccessible to the general public.
 
it seems like a waste of police resources as there is no real victim here - their time would be better spent booking those "real" criminals who drive at 71mph on the motorway
 
cambsno said:
So who has never stolen unsecured wifi access?

There is theft and theft!
Click to expand...
Not quite the same thing, since "stealing" wifi isn't actually depriving the lawful owner of anything (unless you could prove they had suffered economic loss due to degradation in the service).

Whereas taking electricity that they have to pay for most definitely is.


I'm not even sure "stealing" wifi would be a criminal offense. Can't be theft but might fall foul of one of the telecommunications acts? Would it meet the definition of hacking (unauthorized access)?
 
I see he's been charged for his behavior, and not, sadly, for resisting arrest. That would have looked great ohm his criminal record, although his current employer might disagree.

Arresting seems a bit OTT - which bright spark thought to do that? Couldn't they have just given him a few lines to write?
 
Llamaman said:
I see he's been charged for his behavior, and not, sadly, for resisting arrest. That would have looked great ohm his criminal record, although his current employer might disagree.

Arresting seems a bit OTT - which bright spark thought to do that? Couldn't they have just given him a few lines to write?
Click to expand...

Watt!
 
Problem solved...

Custom800.jpg
 
Llamaman said:
Not quite the same thing, since "stealing" wifi isn't actually depriving the lawful owner of anything (unless you could prove they had suffered economic loss due to degradation in the service).

Whereas taking electricity that they have to pay for most definitely is.


I'm not even sure "stealing" wifi would be a criminal offense. Can't be theft but might fall foul of one of the telecommunications acts? Would it meet the definition of hacking (unauthorized access)?
Click to expand...

Not hacking because the said wifi is unsecured.
Therefore no security measures have been breached.
 
They're also not safe. Parents are now advised not to use plug covers because it's more dangerous than leaving the socket open. H&S lawsuit waiting to happen! :D
 
Well, my 20 month old daughter cant get them off, so im assuming that this man-child in the story wouldnt be able to either.
 
I can see that my attempt at humour was a poor one...:rolleyes: :D
 
viv1969 said:
Not hacking because the said wifi is unsecured.
Therefore no security measures have been breached.
Click to expand...
My recollection is that it is not a requirement for one to have bypassed security, merely for it to be unauthorized. Using an unsecured terminal labeled "authorized use only" would be an offence IIRC.

Edit: computer Misuse Act introduced 3 new offences;
  1. Unauthorised access to computer material

  2. Unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence

  3. Unauthorised modification
So whilst I recalled correctly that it was about authorization, not security, I think unauthorized use of wifi probably doesn't commit any of those 3 offences, but (1) is so vague that it could be argued that a data packet sent from a router to which you don't have authorization might technically be an offense.

Way off topic now though!


Further edit: s125 of the Communication Act 2003 makes it an offense to "dishonestly obtaining an electronics communication service". Someone in the UK has been convicted of "piggybacking" wifi under that section:. £500 fine and a 12-month conditional discharge. So yes, it IS an offense.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm

Case closed, m'lud.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
I'm saying his conduct was poor, he lost his fuse, leading to a shocking incident all round. I'll try to be neutral here - he should learn to live within the law, but equally the PCSO should be more down to earth.
Click to expand...

I like your grounded analysis
 
Llamaman said:
I see he's been charged for his behavior, and not, sadly, for resisting arrest. That would have looked great ohm his criminal record, although his current employer might disagree.

Arresting seems a bit OTT - which bright spark thought to do that? Couldn't they have just given him a few lines to write?
Click to expand...

Looks like he may be done for battery and assault.
 
The problem as I understand it is not that he was using the socket - BUT

He was using it when there was a label on it saying it was not for public use .
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Well, my 20 month old daughter cant get them off, so im assuming that this man-child in the story wouldnt be able to either.
Click to expand...
She doesn't need to remove it completely. As long as the top pin is in, it opens the shutter and makes the socket live.

That said, there are no reported cases recently of children electrocuting themselves either with or without plug covers. They're largely pointless.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-are-absurd-and-dangerous-say-engineers.html
 
camerassassin said:
The problem as I understand it is not that he was using the socket - BUT

He was using it when there was a label on it saying it was not for public use .
Click to expand...
Indeed. The offense wasn't unauthorized use of the socket, but the theft (or "abstraction" to be correct in legalese) of the electricity.
 
nilagin said:
I suppose no-one charges their phones at work then.
Click to expand...
Some employers explicitly permit charging a personal mobile phone, provided the charger has been checked for safety. So no issue there.

Most are silent, which would make for a grey area.

A few (such as Ryanair I understand) explicitly forbid the activity, so you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Llamaman said:
Not quite the same thing, since "stealing" wifi isn't actually depriving the lawful owner of anything (unless you could prove they had suffered economic loss due to degradation in the service).
Click to expand...

What if a homeowner has a fixed data limit and the person uses the wifi and downloads more than the homeowner is allowed?
 
Won't be a very good plug for the railway company in question, though.
 
Dave1 said:
What if a homeowner has a fixed data limit and the person uses the wifi and downloads more than the homeowner is allowed?
Click to expand...
Then there's a case to be made in regards to proximate cause, I would think. However, the person doing the piggybacking wouldn't know that so that so you'd have difficulty establishing intent.
Civil case would be straightforward, I think Criminal case would be one for lawyers to argue over - although since it would be easier to convict for a different criminal offense, I doubt the CPS would pursue theft in that example.
 
They were interviewing him on the radio, lunch time, it seems he was surrounded by 4 Transport police after the PCO (or what she was)
called for assistance, one in front, one behind and the other two had hold of his arms.

It also appears the he was finally let off without erm .... charge :D

boliston said:
i wonder what the value of the "theft" is?
Click to expand...
As to the value, it appears that it was the outrageous amount of
Wait for it, 0.052p

I'm glad to see resources are being put to good use (y)
(now we know why train fares are so high ;) )
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
They were interviewing him on the radio, lunch time, it seems he was surrounded by 4 Transport police after the PCO (or what she was)
called for assistance, one in front, one behind and the other two had hold of his arms.
Click to expand...
The police don't normally do that when questioning a suspect, so it raises the obvious question of what he had been doing to require 4 officers to restrain him?

Cobra said:
TheyIt also appears the he was finally let off without erm .... charge :D
Click to expand...
On the theft charge, yes. I thought he had still been charged for his behavior though?

Cobra said:
As to the value, it appears that it was the outrageous amount of
Wait for it, 0.052p
Click to expand...
Pretty stupid to get yourself arrested for it then! People used to get deported for stealing the equivalent of 50p.

Cobra said:
I'm glad to see resources are being put to good use (y)
Click to expand...
Might act as a good deterrent to others now though!
 
Llamaman said:
The police don't normally do that when questioning a suspect, so it raises the obvious question of what he had been doing to require 4 officers to restrain him?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure TBH, at first he said that they must have just been there anyway, as it was only 30 seconds to the station,
then the next minute it was "after she called for back up"
As he tried to leave the platform he was then restrained.
Llamaman said:
On the theft charge, yes. I thought he had still been charged for his behavior though?
Click to expand...
Yes his was dis-charged ( :D ) on the theft, I'm sure he said the once taken to the police station the deck / custody Sergeant just told him to leave.

Llamaman said:
Pretty stupid to get yourself arrested for it then! People used to get deported for stealing the equivalent of 50p.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was hoping for a free ride to Aussie land ? :D
(Well he is an artist apparently :D )
 
Cobra said:
I'm not sure TBH, at first he said that they must have just been there anyway, as it was only 30 seconds to the station,
then the next minute it was "after she called for back up"
As he tried to leave the platform he was then restrained.
Click to expand...
Ah, so he was resisting arrest. Never a good idea. People tend to 'fall down stairs' that way.

Cobra said:
Yes his was dis-charged ( :D ) on the theft, I'm sure he said the once taken to the police station the deck / custody Sergeant just told him to leave.
Click to expand...
Probably not worth the paperwork. Technically, he was de-arrested as he hadn't been charged yet. But I'll allow it on pun license.

Cobra said:
Maybe he was hoping for a free ride to Aussie land ? :D
Click to expand...
What, Wimbledon? [/London joke]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top