# data[].attributes.body
Is using your neighbors Wi-Fi without them knowing, ok?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Finlo Rohrer
BBC News Magazine

A man has been arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street with a laptop using someone else's unsecured wireless connection. Is it immoral to do this?
So here's the thing.

You're walking down the street in Hypotheticalville and in front of you is a gentleman who, when he walks, spills seemingly endless torrents of golden coins on to the pavement behind him.

He seems unconcerned by this and you notice that if not picked up, these magic coins quickly evaporate. Is it moral for you to pick a few up?

It's the kind of tree-falls-in-the-forest whimsy that an undergraduate philosopher might mull over for a moment, but back in the real world a not entirely dissimilar debate is being played out.

The man arrested in a street in west London is at least the third person to be accused of breaching the law by taking internet service without permission.

The Communications Act 2003 says 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".

It is a bit like reading your book from the light coming out from someone's window

Julian Baggini
Philosopher

There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud.

But if it can be interpreted as illegal, can it be truly said to be immoral?

Heavy downloading might affect the unsecured person's speed of access or download limit, but a use like checking an e-mail is hardly likely to be noticed. Most "victims" will suffer no loss.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, says with technology moving rapidly, socially-accepted moral positions can be slow to solidify.

Warchalking identified open wireless networks for those in the know

"I haven't thought about it. I'm not sure anybody has. It might be one of those areas where cultural norms haven't evolved or stabilised yet. It's so new it's not clear whether it's stealing or not. And sometimes the law trails public norms.

"If you steal a silver Mont Blanc pen it's theft but if it's an ordinary ballpoint pen or a pencil it is assumed you can take it.

"In the olden days people had norms about whether you were able to pick apples from someone else's tree. Perhaps it's OK if the branches hang over the road, but not from inside their garden. You have generally shared expectations."

In 2002 Matt Jones, the original designer of the BBC News website, devised "warchalking" with a group of friends. These chalk symbols on walls and pavements showed those in the know where free wireless internet was.

Freeloaders v borrowers

Among the sternest critics of the concept was Nokia, who months later said: "This is theft, plain and simple."

But they were worried about users congregating near an open network and slowing it down, as much as by the ethical considerations. For one person checking an e-mail on a hardly-stretched home connection, the issue might seem different.

Philosopher Julian Baggini says he can't see what all the fuss is about.

"I'm pro the stealers on this one. If you are doing it systematically to avoid chipping in your bit you are a freeloader and that's immoral.

Are they going to prosecute someone who stands outside a bakery warming their hands?

Barry Fox
Technology writer

"But casual and occasional use while travelling is a bit like reading your book from the light coming out from someone's window. It's like eating someone's leftovers."

And he's happy to practise what he preaches.

"I've done it and I don't put a password on my own connection. For all I know that's what someone's doing now.

"But the fact that something is morally acceptable doesn't change the fact of its illegality. The rule of law is an important factor."

Freeloading is unacceptable, but the whole notion of a crackdown on the theft of something that won't be missed shows up an increasingly possessive society.

ISP victims

"We are really obsessed with things being ours or mine. But there are things that can be shared."

An internet service provider (ISP) might argue it is the victim of wireless theft. If people could use other people's wireless, why buy their own?

The idea of "piggybacking" off somebody else's system harks back to the dawn of the internet and the phone phreaking - gaining free calls by cracking the systems - that inspired many technology pioneers.

There's nothing wrong in a little al fresco surfing is there?

Now, of course, the morality of technology is a matter for mainstream discourse.

Barry Fox, contributing editor for Europe Consumer Electronics Daily, says unsecured networks are getting fewer and fewer, but the real moral issue is why computer firms don't take more responsibility for their customers' security.

"When I'm in London I'm in a block of flats, I scan and find unsecured networks. When I first started there were any number of free and unsecured networks, now it's mainly secured networks because many of the ISPs have made it much easier.

"There is a view that if people are daft enough to throw their signal out for anyone to pick up they deserve what they get.

"On the other hand, the computer manufacturers have never done anything to make things easier for the consumer, unless forced to."

The risk of one's computer being hacked or used for malicious purposes is not a fiction, and is the reason that many people insist on securing their wireless connections.

Firework display

But Barry Fox finds it hard to see how a non-invasive use of someone else's signal is a serious crime. "If the person was trying to infect a computer or steal data, that's one thing. But are they going to prosecute someone who stands outside a bakery warming their hands? It is like watching someone else's firework display."

There will be many people who would be outraged to find someone nicking their wireless. The water cooler ethicists may be split down the middle for some time.

But, as Bostrom notes, more attention will bring debates and eventually an accepted norm.

"Maybe with this arrest somebody will want to write a paper on it," he says.

Below is a selection of your comments:

If the wireless owner has not asked for nor expects a payment for use of their broadband and you have not broken into the system but have connected through normal means then I cannot see how you have either "dishonestly" obtained a service nor avoided any payment. Securing your wireless network is clearly recommended in the instructions so I see no reason not to imply that an open network is open for public use. If you don't want people to use your connection: don't broadcast your SSID, secure the connection and/or switch off DHCP.
Gareth, Wetherby

I have not asked, nor do I particularly want to be irradiated by the wireless networks from my neighbours - I can pick up about a dozen. If it enters my house, I should be able to do with it what I want. Don't like it? Get wired!
Gerard, Naarden, Holland

Yes - it's wrong. warming your hands outside the bakery is not the same as standing outside someone's house stealing expensive bandwidth. the bandwidth we pay for is a commodity and as such has an entire value - if someone uses a portion of your bandwidth they are in fact stealing from you. it doesn't take place after you've finished, it takes place as you're using the service. that's the same as some chap sitting down at your table and eating off your plate as you eat. are you okay with that?
Simon, Houston, TX

The rich neighbour found his poor neighbour salivating outside of his kitchen window from the aroma of his food. The rich neighbour demanded payment for the smell of the food. The poor neighbour took some coins from his pocket and said: "I'll pay for the smell of your food with the sound of counting my money".
Tony, Milwaukee WI USA

I think Ibrahim, Bob and Dominic have the right idea. I think if you see someone using the internet and they are not able to provide you with a receipt, then we should phone the police safe in the knowledge that they are likely to be a paedophile who is trying to think of a way to steal your television by flooding your house using the water that they stole from your taps.
Andrew, Edinburgh

The attitude that, if you leave your house or car unlocked you should not complain if it is burgled or stolen is depressing. Theft is theft however the victim behaves and is never their fault. Similarly using someone else's connection is theft unless they have made it clear they are willing to share it.
Alan, Bath, UK

Do you know if someone has a limited or unlimited supply? No. It has the potential to be stealing - so is wrong.
Anon, London

I have used my daft neighbours wifi connection in the past, but I took a guess at the router login and managed to get in to the administration part. I had a look who else had been accessing his wifi and about half the street had been using is because I recognised their names on the connection list.
Glenn Jones, oxford

The "open front door" analogy is correct, but it's not like stealing the TV - which results in significant loss to the property owner. It is much more like walking in, taking a look at the pictures on the wall, sitting on the sofa for a few minutes, watching a bit of TV, and then walking out again leaving everything perfectly intact. I really can't believe that the police would spend a lot of time pursuing people who trespassed in this way as criminals. I totally agree with the permission argument - if you set up your wireless network without any security you should be deemed to have allowed access to all comers.
Andrew, Berkeley, California

In this case the TV is not being stolen, the real analogy is someone comes in ( enters without breaking!) and turns on the TV to watch. Sure this is annoying, but I am sure the police would only come to remove the person from your house, not prosecute them. Although if you asked them to leave (i.e. secured the network) all but real thieves would leave you alone.
Lee, Leicester

Does it matter if Richard Branson, BT or any other major corporate company doesn't get a few more pounds? If someone wants to share then fine, if you're a bit odd and aren't interested, then put a password on it. Don't give me the 'I'm paying, so why should someone else get something out of it' argument either.
Richard, Nottingham

It's not remotely like reading your book from the light coming from someone's window"! Shows how little he understands of broadband. What nonsense. What if you pay to have a water supply piped to your house, and pay a monthly service fee, and perhaps even get metered on your water usage - and then someone secretly taps into your water pipe?

You're paying - they are stealing. That simple. The assumption of the writer is that the broadband access is un-metered, which may not be the case. There's no such thing as 'non-invasive' use if someone else is paying to get the service provided and you are just freeloading.
Dominic, oxford

Freeloading and proud of it. I just hope the person downstairs doesn't read this.
Bob, Bobsland

"If you steal a silver Mont Blanc pen it's theft but if it's an ordinary ballpoint pen or a pencil it is assumed you can take it." Not where I come from! Stealing a pencil is just as bad as stealing a silver pen!
John Collins, Warwick

I agree with Adrian's 'reading over the shoulder' analogy, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use someone else's wi-fi. In response to Ibrahim, it would not matter what the person was doing with your connection, that has no bearing on where the signal came from. Everyone who has a problem with this should lighten up and learn to share a little more, collective wi-fi provision would be cheaper for everyone anyway, and a lot less socially divisive.
Ciaran, London

When you connect to a wifi access point you ask for permission, and depending on what the access point has been told to do, you are either granted permission or not. Thus if the access point as been setup to grant permission to everyone, you are entitled to believe you are allowed to use it. The courts are wrong in this matter and the individuals who setup their access points incorrectly are at fault. Ignorance or stupidity are no excuse to blame others.
Ian Smith, London, UK

I don't really see how it can be "stealing" if the person who paid still has all of what they paid for. In that respect, it's not like your example of taking an apple from the overhanging branch of a tree. More like reading someone's newspaper over their shoulder on the Tube (maybe that will be next...?) "Unauthorised use" maybe, but surely not "stealing".
Adrian, Manchester, UK

If the ISPs in the UK weren't so money-grabbing, then perhaps people wouldn't be tempted to poach unsecured wifi. On continental Europe, free public wifi access is the norm. There's none of this "pay £6 for an hour" nonsense like in the UK (Heathrow being a prime culprit). We've just been on holiday to Switzerland, where the village had at least 3 (and they were just the ones we found on our first attempt) free wifi hotspots for public use. We were able to check our emails and look up train times etc. whenever we wanted to.
Jessica Gooch, Harrow

Haven't the police got more important crimes to resolve? What a disgusting waste of taxes! They're always bleating they haven't got the manpower to solve real issues?!
Mike, Cambridge

Lets try a different analogy. If someone leaves their front door wide open is it wrong to go in a steal the television?
Bob, London

If you leave your wireless connection unsecured then it is your own fault. Just as you wouldn't leave your front door unlocked, neither should you leave your wireless connection open. In fact cafes and other public spaces leave their wireless open so customers can access it. So by leaving your wireless open, you are effectively inviting people to use it. It's as easy as clicking a few settings on your router to secure your network. Those who leave their connections open have as little right to complain as somebody who parks their car and then leaves the door wide open.
Ken, Evesham

Is leaving your car running and open inviting someone to take it for a spin? Of course not, but what kind of a doughnut would you be for doing it?
Steve, Cambridge

The biggest problem comes from people using next door's wireless signal for one's own- that's not al fresco surfing, that's long-term stealing. As for finding a quick wireless spot for free in a city hotel, that is short term and hence should not be so quickly frowned upon.
Tom, Portsmouth, UK

What if the person who was 'stealing' your internet connection was involved in illegal activity such as child pornography....bakery warming the hands? this is more like a pickpocket warming in hands in your trousers.
Ibrahim, derby

In a certain far-off country, potatoes are so cheap that no one buys them as they need: they simply have a load delivered every day, and the ones they don't need they leave out in the street. what can be the harm in picking them up and taking them home?
Nick Arrow, Leeds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Is stealing wireless wrong?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Finlo Rohrer BBC News Magazine A man has been arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street with a laptop using someone else's unsecured wireless connection. Is it immoral to do this? So here's the thing.

# data[].attributes.body
To troll or not to troll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Internet trolls could face two years in jail under new laws. But how does the British legal system currently police online abuse, asks Tom de Castella.

The sending of rape threats to Chloe Madeley is the latest disturbing case of trolling. Now the government says it will act to put trolls in jail for two years.

Nick McAleenan, a media lawyer at JMW Solicitors, says there are three main ways that trolls are prosecuted at the moment.

In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety". Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland. Sean Duffy was jailed under the act for 18 weeks in 2011 after he made "grossly offensive" comments about children who had killed themselves. Then there's the Communications Act 2003 which applies across the United Kingdom. It covers threats but often overlaps with the 1988 act, McAleenan says. It was used to jail a man who posted offensive messages aimed at the families of Jade Goody and John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog.

The third Act is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which deals with stalking both on and offline. It applies in England and Wales, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar legislation. It can be pursued in both civil and criminal courts. It might have been used to prosecute Brenda Leyland, who killed herself after she was revealed to have sent up to 50 tweets a day about the parents of Madeleine McCann. It might be argued that what she did could also have been prosecuted under libel law.

The police are often reluctant to get directly involved in online stalking, McAleenan says. But recently there has been a rise in the police issuing warnings - known as a Police Information Notice - to suspected trolls.

The answer

Malicious Communications Act 1988 - messages causing distress

Communications Act 2003 - threats

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - stalking

But no clear definition of trolling

Critics sometimes question the balance between enforcement and the right to free speech. It can be a fine line. When someone on Twitter accused Tom Daley of letting down his dead father by not winning gold at the London Olympics, the police made an arrest, apparently under the 1988 act. And the 2003 act was used to convict a man who made a joke about blowing up Robin Hood airport in 2010. It was later quashed after a campaign backed by comedians. McAleenan believes the current laws are sufficient. The problem is a lack of resources, and the need for further education of the public and police about what constitutes an offence.
Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Internet trolls could face two years in jail under new laws. But how does the British legal system currently police online abuse, asks Tom de Castella. The sending of rape threats to Chloe Madeley is the latest disturbing case of trolling. Now the government says it will act to put trolls in jail for two years.

# data[].attributes.body
Government breaches Freedom Of Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most important government departments are not fulfilling their obligations under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, a Newsnight investigation has shown.

Ten years on from the Act's introduction, Whitehall is still resisting the transparency law.

For Newsnight I conducted a "mystery shopper" exercise, asking for the same, simple information from almost every central government department, posing as an ordinary member of the public.

The programme's FOI request asked: "For each foreign trip made by a minister in your department on official business in the past year, please could you tell me the minister's identity, destination, purpose of visit, the number of civil servants and the number of special advisers based in your department who were present for each trip."

Only two of the 13 government departments that were approached answered the question in line with the law. The Act gives people a right to get information from public authorities, so long as the data is easy to find and won't cause any harm.

Working with a senior civil servant, I worded the request in a way that was designed to be as simple to answer as possible - and not fall foul of the restrictions in the Act.

The intention was to see how different officials approached the same request - as well as get the information.

I was imagining the results would allow me to compare how fast departments were working.

But in the event, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport were the only two ministries to reply in accordance with the law.

That outcome was concerning.

Given that departments make open data releases on this topic, and are supposed to routinely collate and publish information on the cost and staffing of trips, I was actually really only asking for two new pieces of information: the number of special advisers and the number of civil servants who were present on each trip.

I did expect departments to say that some of the information was online, but still provide the remainder.

I also anticipated that departments might find a reason to use one of the security or data protection exemptions to refuse parts of the request.

But they did not.

Six wrong replies

What actually happened was I received six replies dismissing the request, saying - wrongly - that all of the data was already available.

Those came from from the Ministry of Defence, Scotland Office, Wales Office, Cabinet Office, Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions.

By contrast, the Department for International Development, the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government all said they did not hold the information at all.

Both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HM Treasury said that it would take a civil servant the equivalent of at least 24 hours solid work to get the data.

When 11 departments were presented with the same question, nearly half refused to answer the question because the information was already so easy to find. The others refused because it was so hard to get.

Officials might argue there are appeals processes, which could have resolved this.

Bureaucratic reply

But the Act anticipates that people should receive answers in 20 days, not after months of wrangling. The appeals are supposed to be the exception, not the norm.

I do not think any of the initial refusals we received were reasonable, except for the two full replies.

Still pretending to be a member of the public, I went back to departments after the initial reply, and one - the Ministry of Defence - replied very quickly with a correction.

Staff there genuinely seem to have just misread my request. But others did not.

I was completely ignored by some and the Cabinet Office sent an unhelpful and bureaucratic reply.

The big picture here is that the way the Act operates is capricious for users, and officials look to brush off requests.

Watch Chris Cook's report about his FOI request bonanza on Newsnight on Thursday 29 January at 1030pm on BBC Two.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The information the government won't free

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the most important government departments are not fulfilling their obligations under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, a Newsnight investigation has shown. Ten years on from the Act's introduction, Whitehall is still resisting the transparency law.

# data[].attributes.body
Boy hacks Talk-Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in Northern Ireland in connection with the TalkTalk hacking attack, Scotland Yard has said.

Metropolitan Police said a house had been searched in County Antrim on Monday afternoon at about 16:20 GMT.

The boy was arrested on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act offences.

He has been taken into custody at Antrim police station and is being questioned by detectives from the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

A search of the address is ongoing and inquiries continue.

A police statement said this was a joint investigation involving the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), and detectives from the Metropolitan Police Cyber Crime Unit (MPCCU).

News that the TalkTalk website had been hit by a "significant and sustained cyber-attack" broke last week.

The phone and broadband provider, which has over four million UK customers, said banking details and personal information could have been accessed.

A criminal investigation was launched on Thursday.

The company said it did not know how much of their customer information had been encrypted.

At the weekend, TalkTalk's chief executive said the attack was "smaller" than originally thought.

Dido Harding said any credit card details taken would have been partial and the information may not have been enough to withdraw money "on its own".

Card details accessed were incomplete - with many numbers appearing as an x - and "not usable" for financial transactions, it added.

Business leaders have called for urgent action to tackle cyber crime in the wake of the TalkTalk attack.

On Monday, MPs said an inquiry would be launched into the cyber-attack that could have put customers' details at risk.

Culture minister Ed Vaizey told the House of Commons the government was not against compulsory encryption for firms holding customer data.

Shares in the telecoms company fell more than 12% in Monday trading, extending its losses from last week, when news of the attack first emerged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in Northern Ireland in connection with the TalkTalk hacking attack, Scotland Yard has said. Metropolitan Police said a house had been searched in County Antrim on Monday afternoon at about 16:20 GMT. The boy was arrested on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act offences.

# data[].attributes.body
British Man Hacks US Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 28-year-old British man has been arrested on suspicion of hacking into US military and US government computer systems.

Lauri Love, arrested in Suffolk under the Computer Misuse Act, has been released on bail until next February.

The US authorities claim he placed "back doors" in hacked networks to steal data.

The arrest was the culmination of a joint investigation by the UK's National Crime Agency and the FBI.

According to the US authorities, the arrested man hacked into systems of the US Army, Nasa and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

He has been charged in the US with accessing a government computer without permission.

Recruitment campaign

US authorities, including the army, allege that information accessed included budgets, the disposal of military facilities, and personal information on thousands of people, including military personnel.

Mr Love, from Stradishall, Suffolk, is accused of working with at least three others, who are not named.

The alleged conspirators are said by prosecutors to have chatted online in secure web forums to identify targets, then hacked into thousands of computer systems.

The suspected hackers allegedly placed "back doors", or code, to allow them to get back into the systems later to steal confidential information.

The high-profile arrest is the latest in a series that have involved the UK's newly formed National Crime Agency.

Last week the NCA launched a campaign to recruit up to 400 trainee cyber and intelligence officers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 28-year-old British man has been arrested on suspicion of hacking into US military and US government computer systems. Lauri Love, arrested in Suffolk under the Computer Misuse Act, has been released on bail until next February. The US authorities claim he placed "back doors" in hacked networks to steal data.

# data[].attributes.body
10 things we found out because of the freedom of information act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Freedom of Information Act came in 10 years ago. It's led to the unearthing of a trove of facts.

Ten years ago, thanks to the actions of a "naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop", the British people acquired an important new legal right.

That anyway is how Tony Blair castigates himself in his memoirs for allowing his government to proceed with introducing the Freedom of Information Act. The law, which came into force on 1 January 2005, gives everyone the right to obtain much of the information held by public authorities (with numerous substantial exceptions).

FOI has become a well-established tool for finding out more about the workings of central and local government and the rest of the public sector. So after a decade of freedom of information, what have we discovered that we might not know otherwise - and what does that tell us about the impact of FOI?

1. MPs' expenses

The scandal over expenses that erupted in 2009 led to prison terms for five Labour MPs and two Conservative peers. A slew of others had to repay money.

Arguably the most famous of the claims revealed was one which Commons officials had ruled "not allowable". Sir Peter Viggers tried to claim £1,645 for a floating duck house in the garden pond at his constituency home.

The whole episode was exposed as a direct result of a series of FOI requests.

After losing a lengthy legal battle about how much detail they would have to release under FOI about MPs' expense claims, the Commons authorities were forced to collate millions of invoices, receipts, letters and other documents going back over several years to prepare them for disclosure.

This raw material was then leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which in May 2009 ran story after story about highly embarrassing, greedy, unjustifiable and sometimes criminal behaviour by politicians.

It led to numerous resignations and retirements, the repayment of significant sums, the creation of a new parliamentary pay and expenses system, and a reputational disaster for Parliament and the political class generally.

2. Immigration

Some British diplomats initially ridiculed suggestions that the accession of Poland and other east European countries to the European Union in 2004 would lead to widespread immigration into the UK.

One message, for example, from the British Embassy in Warsaw reporting back to the Foreign Office in London had stated: "One month after succession and the tumbleweeds are not yet blowing down the streets of Poland. As experts had predicted the country has not yet moved en masse to the UK."

By 2010 the number of Polish people in the UK had quintupled to more than 500,000.

Much internal government discussion is still kept secret despite FOI, on the basis that disclosure would harm the frankness of the policy formulation process. But sometimes such material is released.

3. A&E ambulance delays

Some patients taken by ambulance to accident and emergency departments are kept waiting in the vehicle for much longer than the recommended 15 minutes, with people having to wait for several hours in some cases.

This report from 2013 is one of numerous FOI-based surveys which have explored different aspects of the pressures on hospital A&E departments and their consequences. It exemplifies how FOI can often be used to monitor how public services are performing, whether targets are being met in practice, and how badly they may be missed in some cases.

The longest waits for ambulances were in Wales, with a record of 6hrs 22mins and an average waiting time of 20 minutes.

4. Unanswered 101 calls

Hundreds of thousands of phone calls to the 101 non-emergency police number have been going unanswered annually, suggesting that callers hang up rather than wait a long time for an answer.

The data for nine months of 2012 covering 30 out of 43 English and Welsh police forces showed nearly half a million calls were unanswered. For six particularly poorly performing forces the average waiting time exceeded the target of 30 seconds. In some areas the worst waits approached half an hour or even longer.

FOI makes it easier to obtain this kind of performance data for public services, helping members of the public who have a frustrating experience of calling 101 to discover whether their case is isolated or all too common.

5. Knife amnesty

In 2006 widespread concern about knife crime and some particularly horrific cases led police to arrange a highly publicised knife amnesty. Tens of thousands of knives that could have been used as weapons were handed in.

A Metropolitan Police statistical evaluation of the amnesty in London concluded that a few weeks after this operation rates of knife crime were running at pre-amnesty levels. The amnesty appeared to have no long-term impact on reducing this form of violent crime, a fact which only came to light as a result of an FOI request for the report.

Thus freedom of information helped to reveal whether or not a particular public policy was actually having the desired impact.

6. MOT failures

Figures comparing how different makes and models of cars fared in MOT tests were released in 2010.

This followed an 18-month dispute between the BBC and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, part of the Department for Transport. VOSA argued that disclosing the data would breach commercial confidentiality, but were forced to concede by the Information Commissioner, who backed the BBC's request for the data.

The data revealed that Renault Meganes for example had a comparatively bad record of failure and Honda Jazzes a particularly good record of passing. This compared cars of the same age.

It's one of a number of cases where FOI disclosures have only happened after requesters persisted in taking their case to the Information Commissioner or the Information Rights Tribunal, which can overrule public authorities who refuse to supply information.

7. Policing the Old Firm

In the 2010/11 season it cost Strathclyde Police over £2m to police football games between Celtic and Rangers, the passionate derby clashes between the "Old Firm". But the clubs only paid them £300,000 towards this.

This might be the area where FOI has probably had the most far-reaching impact - discovering how much public money is being spent on what. The circumstances in which it can be argued that releasing this would be against the public interest are limited.

8. Restaurant hygiene

Food hygiene ratings for hundreds of thousands of restaurants, cafes and shops are now publicly available thanks to FOI.

In the early years of freedom of information, Bridgend Council in south Wales refused an FOI request for a copy of a food hygiene inspection report for a local hotel. But it was then overruled by the Information Commissioner, whose decision effectively set a precedent that such reports should be in the public domain.

Now food hygiene scores are routinely disclosed (and many outlets display their own ratings themselves). Most of the information is easily available on the website of the Food Standards Agency.

It exemplifies how information which was once secret first went through a phase of being accessible only via FOI and has now become open data, routinely published by public authorities without anyone having to ask for it.

9. Older police

Whether or not police officers look younger to you, they've actually been getting older on average.

In 2013 it was revealed that the number of police officers under 26 in England and Wales fell by nearly half over a period of two years. In contrast the number of officers over 40 stayed roughly unchanged. In other words the fall in police numbers has affected the younger age range, at a time when there is concern about the fitness of police officers.

The Home Office went to the trouble of collecting this information from individual police forces. But it didn't publish the figures until an FOI request asked for them - an example of how freedom of information can bring into the open data that is already being collated centrally.

10. Exchange rate crisis

The Treasury calculated that the cost to the UK government of the dramatic but futile attempt to keep the value of the pound tied to European currency exchange rates in 1992 was about £3bn.

If that sounds like a lot of money, it's a fraction of the estimates involving tens of billions that were previously being made. The exchange rate crisis became the defining political disaster of John Major's period as prime minister. But there are many who argue the result of the crisis was a boost to the British economy.

This was one of the earliest high profile FOI disclosures, coming out in February 2005 only a month after the new law came into force. It illustrates how FOI can shed new light on recent political history, years before the standard timing for the release of historical government records would have applied.
Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Freedom of Information Act came in 10 years ago. It's led to the unearthing of a trove of facts. Ten years ago, thanks to the actions of a "naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop", the British people acquired an important new legal right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Communications Act 2003 is an act that covers various different communications media. The main computing issues that the act protects against are:

'Piggybacking'

This is a term used to describe the process of using someone else's internet connection without their permission or any intention to pay for access. Using a neighbour's WiFi connection without their permission is an example of piggybacking. Using a free WiFi access point like those found in coffee shops is not piggybacking as the company have given customers permission to use their WiFi connection.

Threatening behaviour online

The Communications Act also protects against receiving threats online. In today's electronic age, social media can often be used by people to post threatening comments.

Posting comments to deliberately cause distress is part of what is known as 'trolling'. Some parts of the communications act protect against trolling but the law is due to be updated to better reflect the fact that online trolls can cause offence without necessarily being threatening to others.

Offensive and indecent images

Sending offensive or indecent images of others is also an offence covered by the communications act. Mobile and tablet devices make it very easy to capture videos and images and sometimes the content of the images can be deemed as offensive or indecent. Deliberately sharing these images on social media can be an offence under the Communications Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Bitesize - National 5 Computing Science - Legal implications - Revision 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Communications Act 2003 is an act that covers various different communications media. The main computing issues that the act protects against are: This is a term used to describe the process of using someone else's internet connection without their permission or any intention to pay for access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Computer Misuse

Businesses, government and academic institutions are increasingly reliant on the Internet for their day-to-day business, while consumers are using e-commerce more and more for purchasing goods and services.

This implies ever-increasing opportunities for hackers and virus writers to disrupt the activities of their fellow citizens.

Hacking first became a prominent issue in the 1980's, with the publicity achieved by exploits such as the Internet Worm, but at that time it was not clear how law enforcement agencies could best tackle this new threat.

Hackers were not causing physical damage to anyone's property; if they refrained from modifying files but simply logged on to a system without permission, it was hard to see what crime they could be committing under existing law apart from the theft of a negligible amount of electricity.

A prominent case in the UK:

Two journalists discovered a password that gave them unbilled access to British Telecom's Prestel service.

When they were discovered it was clear that they had obtained this access dishonestly but it was less clear what they could be charged with.

Could not be charged with fraud since under UK law this entails that someone has been deceived

The law does not recognise computers as having minds: therefore they cannot be said to have been ``deceived".

Eventually the two were prosecuted under laws against forgery and counterfeiting, on the grounds that they had effectively forged the password.

This was overturned by the appeal court on various grounds, one of which was that the password they had used was genuine (not a forgery) even if they had made dishonest use of it.

The Computer Misuse Act
The UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 created three categories of offence:

1. unauthorised access to computer material:

there must be intent to access a program or data stored on a computer, and the person must know that this access is not authorised.

This is why login screens often carry a message saying that access is limited to authorised persons: this may not prevent a determined and ingenious hacker getting access to the system, but they will not be able to claim ignorance of committing an offence.

2. unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence: for instance accessing personal files or company records in order to commit fraud or blackmail.

3. unauthorised modification of programs or data on a computer.

Modification of a computer's contents under section 3 may consist of:

Altering data

as in the case of a nurse who observed a doctor entering his password and used it to alter patients' drug dosages and treatment records

Removing data

for instance to cover up evidence of wrongdoing

Adding to the contents of a computer

for instance it has been held that sending an email under a false name results in unauthorised modifications to the content of the mail server

The intent need not be directed at any particular computer, program or data, so this provision covers damage caused by computer viruses - even though the virus author need not have known or intended that any particular system would be affected.

Authorised vs unauthorised access

1. An employee may be authorised in general to access particular types of data in the course of their work, such as bank account details, but put this access to improper use such as fraud or theft. Is this an offence under the Computer Misuse Act?

2. The police, your employer, ISP or college may be authorised to access data you have created without your explicit consent or knowledge:

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 introduced a general right to privacy however there are several exemptions.

The Information Commissioner has published a Draft Code of Practice which is intended to regulate monitoring of employees' emails.

The UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

legalises interception of email by the security services

allows monitoring of email by employers

empowers law enforcement agencies to demand disclosure of encrypted information or a decryption key.

3. Examples of web software executing programs or modifying files on your machine:

Java applets

small Java programs executed from a webpage

run in a secure environment called the sandbox

ActiveX controls

binary programs downloaded from a webserver and executed by the browser

do not have Java's built-in security features.

Javascript

can add various interactive functions to a webpage

Cookies

small text files that a web server can use to store data on a user's hard disk.

Many webpages will not function if you have cookies disabled.

Are these forms of accessauthorised or unauthorised?

What the CMA does not cover

Denial of service attacks

Hard to argue that they involve ``unauthorised access" as they use standard TCP/IP protocols.
However, new Police and Justice Bill addresses DoC and increases penalties for hacking offences.

Abuse of sponsored links

Sponsored links are a form of web advertising which advertisers only pay for when someone clicks on a link to their advert.

If the advertiser's competitors repeatedly clink on the link, the advertiser faces increased costs which do not lead to new business.

Disclaimer
These notes represent the author's understanding of current UK legislation but should not be taken as an authoritative statement of the law.
Back to CIS110 course webpage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Businesses, government and academic institutions are increasingly reliant on the Internet for their day-to-day business, while consumers are using e-commerce more and more for purchasing goods and services. This implies ever-increasing opportunities for hackers and virus writers to disrupt the activities of their fellow citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In brief

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public access to information held by public authorities.

It does this in two ways:

public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and

members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.

The Act covers any recorded information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. Information held by Scottish public authorities is covered by Scotland's own Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Public authorities include government departments, local authorities, the NHS, state schools and police forces. However, the Act does not necessarily cover every organisation that receives public money. For example, it does not cover some charities that receive grants and certain private sector organisations that perform public functions.

Recorded information includes printed documents, computer files, letters, emails, photographs, and sound or video recordings.

The Act does not give people access to their own personal data (information about themselves) such as their health records or credit reference file. If a member of the public wants to see information that a public authority holds about them, they should make a data protection subject access request.

In more detail

What is the Freedom of Information Act for?

The government first published proposals for freedom of information in 1997. In the white paper Your Right to Know, the government explained that the aim was a more open government based on mutual trust.

"Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information."

Public authorities spend money collected from taxpayers, and make decisions that can significantly affect many people's lives. Access to information helps the public make public authorities accountable for their actions and allows public debate to be better informed and more productive.

"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making." - Your Right to Know

Access to official information can also improve public confidence and trust if government and public sector bodies are seen as being open. In a 2011 survey carried out on behalf of the Information Commissioner's Office, 81% of public bodies questioned agreed that the Act had increased the public's trust in their organisation.

The main principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to. This is sometimes described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure. The Act is also sometimes described as purpose and applicant blind.

This means that:

everybody has a right to access official information. Disclosure of information should be the default - in other words, information should be kept private only when there is a good reason and it is permitted by the Act;

an applicant (requester) does not need to give you a reason for wanting the information. On the contrary, you must justify refusing them information;

you must treat all requests for information equally, except under some circumstances relating to vexatious requests and personal data (see When can we refuse a request? for details on these). The information someone can get under the Act should not be affected by who they are. You should treat all requesters equally, whether they are journalists, local residents, public authority employees, or foreign researchers; and

because you should treat all requesters equally, you should only disclose information under the Act if you would disclose it to anyone else who asked. In other words, you should consider any information you release under the Act as if it were being released to the world at large.

This does not prevent you voluntarily giving information to certain people outside the provisions of the Act.

The Act only covers public authorities. Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of the bodies that are classed as public authorities in this context. Some of these bodies are listed by name, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the National Gallery. Others are listed by type, for example government departments, parish councils, or maintained schools. Executive agencies are classed as part of their parent government department; for example, the DVLA is covered by the Act because it is part of the Department for Transport. However, arm's-length bodies are not considered part of the department sponsoring them, and they are listed individually in Part VI of Schedule 1.

Section 5 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to designate further bodies as public authorities. If in doubt, you can check the latest position at www.legislation.gov.uk.

Certain bodies are only covered for some of the information they hold, for example:

GPs, dentists and other health practitioners only have to provide information about their NHS work;

the BBC, Channel 4 and the Welsh channel S4C (the public service broadcasters) do not have to provide information about journalistic, literary or artistic activities; and

some bodies that have judicial functions do not have to provide information about these functions.

In addition to the bodies listed in the Act, with effect from 1 September 2013 the definition of a public authority now also covers companies which are wholly owned:

by the Crown;

by the wider public sector; or

by both the Crown and the wider public sector.

These terms are defined in more detail in the amended section 6 of FOIA.

For example, some local authorities have transferred responsibility for services (eg social housing) to a private company (sometimes known as an arm's-length management organisation or ALMO), which is wholly owned by the local authority. This type of company counts as a public authority in its own right and needs to respond to requests for information. Where a company is wholly owned by a number of local authorities it is also now a public authority for the purposes of FOIA.

Individual MPs, assembly members or councillors are not covered by the Act.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

The Act covers all recorded information held by a public authority. It is not limited to official documents and it covers, for example, drafts, emails, notes, recordings of telephone conversations and CCTV recordings. Nor is it limited to information you create, so it also covers, for example, letters you receive from members of the public, although there may be a good reason not to release them.

The Act includes some specific requirements to do with datasets. For these purposes, a dataset is collection of factual, raw data that you gather as part of providing services and delivering your functions as a public authority, and that you hold in electronic form. Your duties in relation to datasets are explained elsewhere in this Guide, where they are relevant.

Requests are sometimes made for less obvious sources of recorded information, such as the author and date of drafting, found in the properties of a document (sometimes called meta-data). This information is recorded so is covered by the Act and you must consider it for release in the normal way.

Similarly, you should treat requests for recorded information about the handling of previous freedom of information requests (meta-requests) no differently from any other request for recorded information.

The Act does not cover information that is in someone's head. If a member of the public asks for information, you only have to provide information you already have in recorded form. You do not have to create new information or find the answer to a question from staff who may happen to know it.

The Act covers information that is held on behalf of a public authority even if it is not held on the authority's premises. For example, you may keep certain records in off-site storage, or you may send out certain types of work to be processed by a contractor. Similarly, although individual councillors are not public authorities in their own right, they do sometimes hold information about council business on behalf of their council.

Where you subcontract public services to an external company, that company may then hold information on your behalf, depending on the type of information and your contract with them. Some of the information held by the external company may be covered by the Act if you receive a freedom of information request. The company does not have to answer any requests for information it receives, but it would be good practice for them to forward the requests to you. The same applies where you receive services under a contract, for example, if you consult external solicitors.

The Act does not cover information you hold solely on behalf of another person, body or organisation. This means employees' purely private information is not covered, even if it is on a work computer or email account; nor is information you store solely on behalf of a trade union, or an individual MP or councillor.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Anyone can make a freedom of information request - they do not have to be UK citizens, or resident in the UK. Freedom of information requests can also be made by organisations, for example a newspaper, a campaign group, or a company. Employees of a public authority can make requests to their own employer, although good internal communications and staff relations will normally avoid the need for this.

Requesters should direct their requests for information to the public authority they think will hold the information. The public authority that receives the request is responsible for responding. Requests should not be sent to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), except where the requester wants information the ICO holds.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

You have two main obligations under the Act. You must:

In addition, three codes of practice contain recommended good practice when applying the Act.

The section 45 code of practice gives recommendations for public authorities about their handling of requests. It covers the situations in which you should give advice and assistance to those making requests; the complaints procedures you should put in place; and various considerations that may affect your relationships with other public bodies or third parties.

There is an additional section 45 code of practice on datasets. This provides guidance to public authorities on how to meet their obligations in relation to the dataset provisions in sections 11, 11A, 11B and 19 of the Act.

The section 46 code of practice covers good records management practice and the obligations of public authorities under the Public Records Acts to maintain their records in an ordered and managed way, so that they can readily retrieve information when it is needed.

These codes of practice are not directly legally binding but failure to follow them is likely to lead to breaches of the Act. In particular there is a link between following part II of the section 45 code of practice and complying with section 16 of the Act. Section 16 requires you to provide applicants with reasonable advice and assistance. This includes advice and assistance to members of the public before they have made their request.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Making information available is only valuable to the public if they know they can access it, and what is available. You should:

publicise your commitment to proactive publication and the details of what is available. See What information do we need to publish?;

publicise the fact that people can make freedom of information requests to you;

provide contact details for making a request, including a named contact and phone number for any enquiries about the Act; and

tell people who you think may want information that they can make a request, and tell them how to do this.

You should communicate with the public in a range of ways. This is likely to include websites, noticeboards, leaflets, or posters in places where people access your services.

You must also make your staff, contractors, customers or others you have contact with aware of how the Act may affect them. You should make it clear that you cannot guarantee complete confidentiality of information and that as a public body you must consider for release any information you hold if it is requested. You will need to consider each request individually, but it is worthwhile having policies or guidelines for certain types of information, such as information about staff.

The UK General Data Protection Regulation (the UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA 2018) give rules for handling information about people. They include the right for people to access their personal data. The Freedom of Information Act and the DPA 2018 come under the heading of information rights and are regulated by the ICO.

When a person makes a request for their own information, this is a data protection subject access request. However, members of the public often wrongly think it is the Freedom of Information Act that gives them the right to their personal information, so you may need to clarify things when responding to such a request.

The UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 exist to protect people's right to privacy, whereas the Freedom of Information Act is about getting rid of unnecessary secrecy. These two aims are not necessarily incompatible but there can be a tension between them, and applying them sometimes requires careful judgement.

When someone makes a request for information that includes someone else's personal data, you will need to carefully balance the case for transparency and openness under the Freedom of Information Act against the data subject's right to privacy under the data protection legislation. You will need to decide whether you can release the information without infringing the UK GDPR data protection principles.

See When can we refuse a request? for more information on the exemptions for personal data.

The Act does not affect copyright and intellectual property rights that give owners the right to protect their original work against commercial exploitation by others. If someone wishes to re-use public sector information for commercial purposes, they should make an application under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations. See the What is PSI? section of the National Archives website for more information on this. The ICO does not have any powers to regulate copyright or the re-use of information.

When giving access to information under the Act, you cannot place any conditions or restrictions on that access. For example, you cannot require the requester to sign any agreement before they are given access to the information. However, you can include a copyright notice with the information you disclose. You can also make a claim in the courts if the requester or someone else uses the information in breach of copyright. The ICO encourages public authorities to use the Open Government Licence provided by the National Archives.

In most cases re-use of information released under the Act is dealt with under RPSI. RPSI applies to most but not all public authorities; for example, universities in general are not covered by RPSI although their libraries are. For public authorities that are not subject to RPSI, there are some re-use provisions in the Act but they only apply to one type of information, namely datasets. Under these provisions, if you are releasing a dataset that is a 'relevant copyright work' and you are the only owner of the copyright or database rights, then you must release it under a licence that permits re-use. The licences to use for this are specified in the section 45 code of practice on datasets. If the dataset can be re-used without charge, then the appropriate licence will usually be the Open Government Licence.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

The Freedom of Information Act may work alongside other laws.

Some of the exemptions in the Act that allow public authorities to withhold information use principles from common law, for example the section 41 exemption refers to the law of confidence.

Also, section 44 of the Act allows information to be withheld when its disclosure is prohibited under other legislation, and section 21 can exempt information that is accessible to an applicant using procedures in other legislation. See When can we refuse a request? for more information on the exemptions.

When dealing with requests for information, you should continue to be aware of your obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (or Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland). These Acts are not regulated by the ICO so they are not covered in this guidance.

You should handle requests for environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Regulations also require you to make environmental information available proactively by readily accessible electronic means. If you are likely to be handling requests for information, you will need to familiarise yourself with the basics of the Regulations, especially the definition of 'environmental information', found in regulation 2(1).

If you are a public sector body as defined by RPSI then most of the information you hold as part of your public task must be made available for re-use on request. Most, but not all public authorities are public sector bodies under RPSI. Libraries, museums and archives are covered but they have discretion as to whether to permit re-use. RPSI applies to information in which you, as the public sector body, hold the intellectual property rights but does not generally apply to information that is exempt from disclosure under the Act or under the Environmental Information Regulations.

The Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Regulations 2009 came into force on 31 December 2009. You will need to take these into account when considering your duty under the Freedom of Information Act to proactively publish information, as they require public authorities to make 'spatial data sets' (sets of data linked to geographical locations) publicly available in a consistent and usable electronic format.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public access to information held by public authorities. It does this in two ways: public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.