Re: I'm wondering
@AC
"if someone's using your WiFi without permission - which iirc was the purpose of the upside-down-ternet? - then they've committed the unauthorised use and intrusion, not you? THe disconnect thing is cleaner, yes, but you aren't tampering with authorised user's data ....."
Well yes, but that's common sense speaking.
And indeed there might be no harm attributable to someone dealing with unauthorised access this way BUT, I would never do this because it would open a (small) potential legal liability. Not in disrupting someones service but in you potentially being responsible for what those people access and do over your connection.
Consider that a key claim of the plaintiff's in the MPAA Roadshow vs iiNet case was that iiNet was responsible for any illegal actions of the people using their network because they had the visibility to identify offending traffic and the power to stop it.
If you had a claim against you for, say sharing copyrighted content over you connection, your ability to assert that you are not liable due to the infringement being conducted by an unauthorised person utilising your connection would be likely be hampered if it was shown that you not only had mechanisms in place to control access to the connection but that some of those mechanisms were put in place specifically to detect and affect unauthorised users and traffic.
Maybe you would still be successful in that argument but I would think it would be a much harder sell!