Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Are You Liable If Someone Does Something Illegal On Your WiFi?
techdirt.com — For years, whenever the press has written one of their fear-mongering stories about open WiFi, they almost always include some tidbit about how if someone uses your network to do something illegal, you can be arrested for it. It's one of the popular open WiFi horror stories -- but is it true?
Mehul- 1925 diggs
- digg it
- tangledweb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47Lame.
It is just a flimsy blog post with a non-lawyer's speculation. It is an interesting issue, and I would love to read a detailed, educated investigation of it ... but this is neither.- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -35/+1bump.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I want to see the results of an actual court case on this. I would suspect however that the RIAA would do whatever it could to prevent something like this getting to judgment.
- MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll give you a lawyer's perspective on why I knew this article was worthless as soon as I read the title:
"Are You Liable If Someone Does Something Illegal On Your WiFi?"
Liable = civil law
Illegal = criminal law
Civilly, anyone can sue you for anything. But who would be doing the suing in this case? The RIAA? You'd have to prove negligence, starting with a duty owed. To whom did I owe a duty? The RIAA for not securing my connection? Society? Very murkey and uncharted legal territory.
Criminal law guilt boils down to mens rea or intent. Intent is the first element of any crime and I have a hard time believing a prosecutor would be able to prove I had the intent necessary for a child porn charge if some pervert was leeching off my connection.
- Woofcat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I thought it was interesting. Since it's something i deal with.
- Ghostintheshell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5According to your logic by leaving your doors unlocked in a car and having your stuff stolen out of the car you are still not liable. I am sure your insurance adjuster would disagree when you attempt to claim the car, or stuff from the car on an insurance claim. IF you take reasonable measures to secure your belongings and they still get stolen then not only is the theif still commiting a crime, but you can not be held liable for enabling or assisting in the crime.
Bar owners are responsable when clients leave a bar drunk and end up driving, if they know the person could potentially drive. (At least this is the case in Canada and most US states)
Neglect and ignorance is never an excuse! - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18No, it's more like you leave your car unlocked, and then someone steals it and runs over six people, and you're the one who gets prosecuted.
It's pretty retarded. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2JimV: Yes, but that has actually occurred in the past. Somebody gets their car stolen (usually a business), driver hits somebody, hittee sues owner of car instead of criminal. Quite often, the hittee wins, depending on the jurisdiction. Reason being that they sue the owner for negligence in failing to secure his ride. If owner didn't lock car, for example, he might indeed be liable.
Now, I ain't saying it's right, but it has happened and continues to happen, every few months. - Chongo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Jim
You know, I never really thought of it like that. Initially I believed that if your to lazy to read a manual on how to lock your wi-fi down, then you deserve the consequences of what happens. But your comment actually made some sense. I didn't think about the whole child porn thing as well. what happens if someone downloads kiddie porn through your connection? - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> ghostintheshell wrote: "According to your logic by leaving your doors unlocked in a car and having your stuff stolen out of the car you are still not liable. I am sure your insurance adjuster would disagree when you attempt to claim the car,"
Perhaps an insurance company would take issue in this situation. However, an insurance company balking at paying a claim is a far cry from committing an illegal act.
There might be exceptions to this, of course. If I leave a loaded gun in my unlocked car and someone steals it, using it to commit murder then I suppose it's possible that I might be partially liable. On the other hand if I leave a note pad and pencil in my unlocked car and someone steals them, using them t write a holdup note to rob a bank I can't imagine that I'd be an accessory to this crime.
Are you, ghostintheshell, claiming that open WiFi is equivalent to a loaded gun?
Secondly, there are people who intentionally leave their WiFi open because they want others to have access to it. Of course their ISP might not like it and indeed this may violate their terms of service but such activity would hardly be a criminal violation.
One of my larger clients has a special "side network" within their operation where they run several WiFi hotspots in their building with access to the internet and a couple of printers. This side network is OUTSIDE of the firewall for their own operation so I don't consider my client to be "negligent or ignorant." All they wanted is a simple way to access the net and maybe print a document or two for the many contract employees and customers they have in and out of their place each day. This is a safe and inexpensive method because these people DON'T have access to the organization's "real" network and no effort must be expended to track access authorization.
But if one of these contract employees, clients or even some dork sitting on the street with his laptop should commit a crime of some sort then it is your belief that my client should be held responsible. Am I correct?
- Ghostintheshell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5According to your logic by leaving your doors unlocked in a car and having your stuff stolen out of the car you are still not liable. I am sure your insurance adjuster would disagree when you attempt to claim the car, or stuff from the car on an insurance claim. IF you take reasonable measures to secure your belongings and they still get stolen then not only is the theif still commiting a crime, but you can not be held liable for enabling or assisting in the crime.
- putnam, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9The answer is an obvious no.
There, I saved you the effort of reading a cardboard blog post.- pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Why obvious no? This is a different issue than someone tapping your phone or cloning your cell.
Most people on the street will see an open WAP as an invitation to surf. The "bad" people (pr0n, warez, etc) will see it as an invitation to be anonymous. My philosophy on it is that if you leave the "door" unlocked, you can't cry foul when someone uses your stuff.
(and I'm someone that had his car stereo and CDs stolen one night b/c I forgot to lock my door)
If it's something you want to protect, it's your responsibility to protect it, be it locking your doors, or locking your WAP. Otherwise, I could go buy a second hand wifi card, stick it in my laptop, do the "bad" things, throw the card away and complain that I was "hacked", and make up some car on the street thing. How could it be proved that I didn't do it and just got caught?
Everyone needs to take responsibility for their networks, or not bother having them. - Xtra7973, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Ok I'll bite. So by you not having your doors locked in your car your radio and cd's got stolen? Because we all know you cant steal a radio and cd's if the doors are locked in your car. So by your logic, or lack there of, that would mean even if you took all measures to make sure your Wi-Fi is secure and someone gets around it (because we all know that's impossible) and does something illegal then you're responsible for whatever they did? Thanks for playing. Please think before you type.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Most wifi routers don't enable encryption and password protection by default. I think that would be enough to convince authorities that you are unaware such features exist (even if that's not true) if someone did the nasty with your wireless internet.
- Ghostintheshell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually not to long ago a court in the UK fined a man for using someone elses WiFi.... so legal preceedings have already happened regarding this issue. It is possible though, that if proper security proceedures are not taken and someone "uses" your WiFi for illegal purposes you can, and likely will be held liable for it. Unless you can prove you did not take part in, enable or willingly allow such activity to happen.
Read your ISP's EULA.... I do believe most - if not all - state you are responseable for the connections use...
more here: http://www.christophermercer.net/index.php?itemid=13&catid=3
and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm - ryan_merket, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5If you leave your car unlocked over night and someone pops the ignition, steals your car then kills someone because he was drunk driving should you be held responsibe because you accidently left your car unlocked?
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ryan_merket
Picture it more like, you left your keys in the ignition, and then the drunk driver just ditched the car, so they never found who was driving. All they have is YOUR car at the scene of the crime. I would hope you have a better story than "I was sleeping" - pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Xtra: No, I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened if I'd locked the doors, what I'm saying is, because the door is unlocked, it's less likely they'd move on to another easier target.
If on the other hand, you've enabled all possible security measures (locking doors, car alarm, WEP/WPA) and someone then breaks in and steals stuff and/or car, or uses wifi, then you did what you could. And you can most likely PROVE you had it locked, and if there's an IDS of any kind, you can show the logs where they broke your lock, so to speak.
I'll agree my logic was a bit flawed, because the wifi debate doesn't allow for real world analogy. because it's a signal that becomes public (range is *too* good on most home units), it is your responsibility to secure it.
spyrochaete: Ask any cop on the beat, ignorance is no defense. "I'm sorry officer, I didn't stop at the sign because I didn't know I had to".
ghostintheshell: Well said, and to boot, most ISPs ToS/EULA forbid the use of sharing the connection in any way, including a router, wifi or not. so just by admitting to the ISP you have a wifi and you got "hacked", they can terminate your service.
ryan: maybe not in the eyes of the law, or morals (whatever they are) but just wait and see what your insurance will go up to. and besides, again, there is no loss of life/true loss of property here, so a car analogy doesn't fit the situation well. - Xtra7973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2pcronin: Here is a question for you. Who is responsible for open Wi-Fi hot spots like Starbucks? Or an even better one would be just go to New York city and most of the public parks in New York have open and free Wi-Fi. Who do you go after then? Mayor? Tax payers that are paying for this and making it available to everyone? I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, but, with that being said you cant make the owner responsible for criminal activity on there connection to the internet. If we do make it illegal to the owner of the internet connection, then anyone who gets a virus and spreads it across the internet, even though they have no knowledge of they themselves being infected, to someone else's PC would then be held liable. I just don't see how making the owner liable would be good for anyone.
- pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Xrta: Personally haven't been to a sStarbucks, or NYC. But arround here the ISPs/Cities are offering free WiFi, and there's a spalsh page with a ToS to agree to before you're actually online. (captive portal) The whole reason they do that is because *THEY ARE RESONSIBLE* for the connection.
You can't make a generalization about business, as we don't know the specifics behind *thier* agreement with the ISP to redistrubite the access. Short answer, I'd say yes, make the provider of the signal, private or comercial entity, responsible for the users. In private cases, it should be locked, even though it can be broken. In a "Starbucks" setting, the captive portal with ToS and a logging system is all that's needed. The ISP gets an abuse report, goes to the company providing the wifi, they find the login/MAC of the person using it at the time.
"Bad" guy gets found next time they show up, and the rest of us still get to check gmail.
Technicly, the owners of "zombie" PCs for virii, spam, and warez, ARE liable, as per the terms of thier ToS that state in various ways "The user is responsible to keep OS as secure as possible, and can be terminated at any time if found to be a point of infection".
The legalise on it is much prettier of course, but that's the jist.
The biggest reason for adding security, and I'm surprised it's not been mentioned before, is when someone gets on your WAP, they're not just using your 'net connection, they are on your LAN! Any SMB shares are wide open, and they might not even be going out side your network, they might just be sitting there, in permisic mode capturing your packets, with credit card, banking, email, etc passwords, or any other info they care to grab from your machine(s). I couldn't care less about someone pausing in front of my house to check email/download a map. But once they start browsing my shares, I take offence to that.
That is the only reason I've locked my WAP.
Someday I'll have an open one, with a strict transparant proxy, no access to the rest of my network, and a captive portal page, requiring a free registration. These in place, and clearly marked, if anyone tries anything, it's well known that it is to be made available to athorities. (of course, this violates my ToS, and I might end up getting denied service from that ISP again, but that is the way it should be.) - Brian.Honaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You are right. If you don't secure your wireless, you are asking for it. You deserve everything that you could get. If your grandma has wireless, and she doesn't secure it, she deserves it too.
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we're using the car analogy, we should compare an unsecured wireless to not just an unlocked car, nor just an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition, but a car left unlocked while running. Imagine you jump out of your running car to run up the the ATM or quickie mart, and some 9-year-old kids walk by and see the empty *running* car, are tempted, and get in the car and drive it through the window of a nearby business. In this case, the owners (and possibly the parents) sue you and will you will most likely be found responsible, since who in their right mind would leave a car running and unlocked?
Depending on the severity of the crime committed using your open wireless, you could have quite a tough battle ahead of you. All the police need to do is show the ISP logs that indicate the public IP was assigned to you. That is plenty for them to charge you with the crime. Now the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to show that it wasn't you at all, but some phantom hacker that just happened to use your unsecured publicly available and openly broadcasting wireless Internet connection.
Even if you could win such a legal battle, why on EARTH would you want to subject yourself to the time, money, headache, and potential public humiliation that would be involved with clearing your name?! Even if you could prove yourself in the end, it's best just to avoid the entire thing to begin with and take the sixty seconds to enable encryption and disable SSID broadcasting.
Sure, they could still possibly hack into your network and do the crime, and you'd still have to defend yourself in court, but taking minimal precautions will make your neighbor's open wireless network a far juicier target! - crackedsaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't understand the big deal. Any kid can crack WEP and see "non broad-casted" SSIDs. You can't really be totally secure with wireless.
Only a few months ago (I'm probably wrong on the time line) has WAP become more popular and even that I've heard can be cracked (or the theory of it at least). As for EAP- well haven't seen it much lately except on the enterprise level/education campuses.
Well, my two cents. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1crackedsaint- I don't think anyone was ever making the point that taking steps to make your wireless more secure would make you impenetrable to attack. I know I certainly wasn't. Doing simple math: with how popular wireless access points are these days, there are going to be many of them configured without any security measures enabled. And what network will a criminal choose to use first? The one that's completely wide open, or the one that requires spending a block of time just to try to get *on* the network, not to mention the additional time it takes to do whatever they wanted to do on the Internet to begin with. When it comes to crime, speed is of the essence.
I can grab various sniffing tools and find a WEP-enabled wireless network, capture enough data, and then work on it until I discover the WEP key. (Granted, all of this is a lot more difficult when the network doesn't broadcast the SSID; your run of the mill "stumbler"-type programs certainly don't see them... consequently, I'm confused why you put the term 'non broadcasted SSIDs' in quotes; that is indeed what it's called, and it's the first step you should take in securing a wireless network. You should look it up.) ... Anyway, I could go through all the hassle... but why on earth would I bother, when Bob Smith down the street has a wireless network that's wide open and ready to use? And besides, just because you can crack WEP, doesn't mean you should bother. Contrary to the imaginations of some, most of what's on home networks isn't worth the bother of cracking a WEP key. So since you're only interested in access to the Internet anyway, why not go the easy route?!
The whole point is: Take sixty seconds, secure your network as much as is sensible, and you avoid nearly everyone who would otherwise use your network unauthorized. - crackedsaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, programs like NetStumbler see's nonbroad-casted SSIDs as long as someone is accessing that wireless node at that point in time.
But for everything else I agree- mostly. Yes everything you do is considered just another layer/obsticle (i.e. MAC filtering, WEP, etc) and yes it takes time to crack but know it CAN be cracked. And these days that out of the box wireless router's software actually takes the user through the right steps to configure the router. More and more routers I see these days are WEP encrypted- but that could just be my area. If I was to look for an open node, I'd spend most of the day looking for just one. Then you get into how long it takes for you to crack it compared to finding an open one...
I'm just saying its stupid to make this law if you can't even truly protect it. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, laws aren't necessarily required to be fully meritous in order to be enacted. Take a look at the patent system, or look at laws that regulate the behavior of two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. While certain laws may be more difficult to enforce, it doesn't mean that those laws do not exist, nor does it mean that certain agencies will not *try* and enforce them if they feel the need.
As far as non-broadcasted SSID's being detected by NetStumbler, I have in fact experimented in the past attempting to do such a thing. I was unsuccessful. I was only successful when I used NetStumbler from a machine that had already associated to the network with the non-broadcasted SSID. (Seeing as the computer already knows about that "hidden" network, it's no surprise netstumbler was able to detect it.) When I attempted the same operation using netstumbler on a non-associated computer, it made no mention of the network, although it did still detect the several other WEP and Non-WEP wireless networks nearby.
I assumed this was normal behavior for Netstumbler, seeing as I figured without a broadcasted SSID sequence, the application wouldn't know *what* or *where* to look for it. Your mileage may vary, but I'm pretty confident my network didn't appear via casual wireless sniffing.
- pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Why obvious no? This is a different issue than someone tapping your phone or cloning your cell.
- MacAddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting read but not conclusive.
- SentOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I leave mine open just for that reason.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I just read this on the Techdirt site an hour ago. Hey why don't just interlink all stories form techdirt and /.?
- filmo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Isn't that like saying 'Are you liable if someone runs over a pedestrian after stealing your unlocked car'?
- Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, because things are different with computers.
- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3so if someone steals your car and kill some one your not resposible, but if you have a party they get drunk and kill them selves on the street you are... guess what computer car alnalogys dont always fit....
- infonography, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That comment makes no sense. You don't have a reason it's different, so you just say it's different to make your point. Both are machines and both can be taken over. So what exactly makes them different? Last I checked I didn't need a license to drive on these internets.
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This article frightens me a bit as it borders on legal advice. Naughty naughty.
I will say this: there's very little common or statutory law on the matter, so there's no guarantee one won't be held liable in one's jurisdiction. Wi-fi is still in the legal wild west until we get some good decisions laid down. - spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This article is false, to be a service provider you have to have contracts and the ability to release contact info of your subscribers to the authoritys should an electronic crime take place, other wise you are fully resposible for all activity of that connection... Having an open wifi connection does not mean no one useing that connection has to take resposibility for it.
- realfinkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What about all the coffee shops out there offering free wireless? They cannot release contact info about subscribers.
That said, I was running sveasoft on my wrt54g for months and at some point (I've been told this can happen between upgrades) it "lost" my wireless security settings, leaving me open for who knows how long. My wireless is fairly strong outside at the onstreet parking and I am freaked that someone used it illegally during this time (haven't heard from the RIAA yet though). I keep it locked down now with AES/WPA2 and I recommend people do the same. It just would not be worth the hassle to try to explain to a (possibly) computer illiterate judge about wireless networks. - spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I've seen a coffe shop open wireless connection get shut down by the cops before.
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually there's nothing in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that says a service provider must have contracts or the ability to identify it's users:
Definition: For purposes of section 512(c), a "service provider" is defined as a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, including an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
Under that definition, any given person with an open access point is a "service provider".
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
- realfinkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What about all the coffee shops out there offering free wireless? They cannot release contact info about subscribers.
- Rapax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The analogy of an unprotected WiFi Network as an 'open door' is not very suitable. A comparisson to a porch light is much better. They both emit an EM signal when left running by the owner, and they both 'shine' in all directions unless screened.
So if someone sits in my driveway and uses the light from my porch to write a fake check, or to forge a document etc. Is the owner of the porch light responsible, only because he could have put up a screen that stops the light from reaching the driveway?- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2what the hell, your comparing apples to disco danceing here, you smoking crack?
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0To make your analogy a bit closer.
He uses your porch light to write a bad check, then puts it in your mailbox for outgoing mail. Then when UPS delivers the goods, he steals them from your porch.
- markcrules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My ISP's T&C state that I as a subscriber am solely responsible for my DSL line. If anyone in my household infringes copyright or any other legally dubious activity then I am solely liable. I should ensure that all those that use my DSL line do so within my ISP's T&C. It didnt say, but I would guess that I would be liable if some teen leeched a few albums or some sicko in the neighbourhood started acting like Gary Glitter with my bandwidth. Having an open Wi-fi connection would be no defense, as I have agreed I am responsible, and that includes WPA'ing up my Wi-fi if needed.
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1All your ISP's Terms & Conditions do is release them from liability... Or at least that's what they hope for. Technically the DMCA already indemnifies them of any liability that is caused by their users, but lawyers like to write things like that into contracts "just in case".
If you really want to be progressive with an open wifi connection, you could make all users click through some T&C that indemnifies YOU as well. However, just like the ISP's T&C, it really doesn't give you any more or less protection in regards to the law.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that if you're accused of a "digital crime" that was committed via your Internet connection, your contract with your ISP will have no role to play in any litigation. If your ISP contract says you can't use a wireless access point and someone commits a crime using an access point that you setup, the ISP probably won't get involved at all. What do they care? Your crime is either with some 3rd party or with the state. Not them.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Like what radicand? Talk out your ass much buddy?
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did you sign and have the T&C notorized?
Is your service provider allowed (legally) to make you criminally liable?
No
Your violation of the T&C gives your service provider the right to terminate your contract.
It does not make you open for arrest.
Your ISP is not the police.
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1All your ISP's Terms & Conditions do is release them from liability... Or at least that's what they hope for. Technically the DMCA already indemnifies them of any liability that is caused by their users, but lawyers like to write things like that into contracts "just in case".
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I leave my Acess point open but I do live in a rural area in Vermont and my elderly next door Nieghbors (and my Landlords) dont have a computer .
To acess my Wi-Fi connection from the Highway that rans near the property someone would need a cantenna but wirless works perfectly in the yard .I take the laptop to thier place when they want to chack somthing out on the computer .
If my landlords get a wirless ready laptop I would be quite happy to let them piggyback onto my Wireless Connection.- el_taco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1rural area.. yer not sharing dialup are you?
- birdbrane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Last week I went to a talk by local Law Enforcement about Internet crimes against children. During that talk the investigator claimed that if someone uses your wireless network to download illegal content (in this case child pornography) , they can have you arrested and will press charges.
Between the ICAC and Missing and Exploited Children organizations, they can probably get the charges to stick. Ten minutes versus ten years...take the 10 minutes to set up encryption.- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the investigator is not a lawyer or a judge many investigators and law enforcement officails think they can make charges becuse of thier personal interpretaion of the law .
- daedalus01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd have a hard time believing that they'd rather stick the charges on you if they could possibly catch the real person looking up child pornography, but the whole thing is a grey area in law as far as I know.
In any event, I'd have to agree... take the 5-10 minutes to throw on some WPA encryption. No price can be put on peace of mind. - Patzilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1F*ck the Po-lice! I'm sick and tired of these "Legal Pedophiles" that use "the safety of the children" as an excuse to add on new BS laws and restrictions to my freedom. I leave my WiFi wide open. The worst thing I'm doing is possibly breaking my ISPs TOS. Bottom line...Bad people do bad things with or without my permission.
- BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This has to be a grey area. I sit in the Continental presidents club all the time, they have free WiFi with NO security. People sit outside the door and leach on their networks all the time. At no time am I asked for any identification, or warned about what I do or what I download and could theoretically download or do whatever I wanted.
You can't tell me a major corporation like Continental have not looked into this and I am sure they are not operating as an ISP??? - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well if I leave the doors to my house open when i'm gone does that give someone the right to go in and start looking around?
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the person enters your property line without permission than its trespass but if the wireless signal bleeds beyond your property boundaries into public areas and other peoples property then they are not committing a crime
.Its like a fruit tree that overhangs a fence if the tree has a piece of fruit that is accessible in a public area like a footpath than the person can take that fruit legally ,is it morally right to to take the fruit is another question. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WIFI is EM, you are sharing it even if it is encrypted. Its radiating to all of your neighbors homes. The locked door analogy doesn't really apply (unless you change it to "I left my shed unlocked and dragged it into my neighbors yard...")
If you leave your outside light shining into my yard, does that give me the right to read a book by it?
If your sprinkler sprays into my lawn, does that give my grass the right to grow?
If your dog craps in my yard, am I obligated to return it?
If you are in your house taking on a CB radio, I can listen and respond, legally.
When you leave your wifi open, its like saying, I'm a good neighbor, feel free to share my conection.
If you encrypt it its like saying, I'd really prefer you leave my connection alone. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mattH- Actually, the old way of thinking as far as "signal bleeding beyond the edge of your property line" simply does not work in the modern era, when it comes to technology. If that were the case, people could never be found guilty of trespassing when they hack into a private network. For example, you figure out the modem number to some government server. You dial in from home. Technically, you are at home and *not* at the government facility in question. The "signal" of their modem has crossed their property line and come into your home, by way of the phone line. Using your logic, a person couldn't be held responsible for their actions, since they were acting upon something that was freely accessible from their own home. We all know that people get busted for this kind of stuff all the time, however.
You can let the radio waves pass over you all day long. As soon as you use those signals to actually become a member of that other person's network, you put yourself at risk of prosecution.
The moral of the story is don't take without asking, even if it's an open wireless network that falls right into your lap.
- MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the person enters your property line without permission than its trespass but if the wireless signal bleeds beyond your property boundaries into public areas and other peoples property then they are not committing a crime
- Slipdisc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I would say yes you would be libel
- ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was thinking you would be more slander myself...
- dumbpiney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just think about this. You need to protect what you can, just like other people are saying "If you leave you doors open, don't be shocked if someone comes in." Having open wireless is good for some people, say like you are on a job out in New Jersey, but you live in New York, and you need to check your e-mail, just drive around, find an open wi-fi and there you go, nothing wrong with that, but now if I am from New York and come to New Jersey and hope on someone's wi-fi and break the law that’s different. So there always two side of the store. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions, like say like your a father, you own a gun, you kid find your gun, not locked up, and loaded, and goes and kills someone, ya the kid broke the law, but shouldn't the father who was careless be held responsible?
- foxter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is an interesting issue with more and more websites popping up which let you share your Wi-Fi connections. I do share my connection with anyone who's close enough to use it. But there is also another, much bigger class of people who have other people use their connections -- the uneducated. I really think that there ought to be a distinction between the two classes. One obviously knows what might happen and the other is just ignorant. I'm not sure which person is more guilty.
I might have to stop sharing my connection because I know that not all of the people who use my connection do "legal" things with it.
The days of simple, black and white morality are over folks. We live in a gray, gray world. - redrighthand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know from firsthand experience that when the FBI comes knocking on your door they assume it was you the "Owner" of the WIFI signal that perpetrated the crime. I was just lucky that there was absolutely no evidence that we had been involved in any illegal activity and that I hadn't had a computer for 2 months either, but that did not keep them from scanning my roommates hard drive for illicit materials. Wether or not you can be held liable for leaving your WIFI open just be aware that you are who they will come to when something bad happens.
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is not about normal law!
This is the law that lets companies off the hook when they do not protect their networks and someone hacks in and does something illegal.
But if your not a business it does not apply to you. - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When you accept your ISP's conract, you also generally accept responsibility for what happens over that connection. It's in *YOUR NAME.* so any activity from that connection is assumed to be *FROM YOU.*
It's also usually a violation of the ISP's ToS to have more than one computer on a given connection. They don't really enforce it, but they won't give you support if you're behind a router.- Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um if you are speaking about Tech Support, then I have to disagree with you. I have gotten phone and on site tech support many times. and I am behind a router.
As for the rest of your statement, you are probably right. That seems the logical thing to think. - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Your argument doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing of the ISP. Follow the chain *all the way*:
Level 3 sells a backbone connection to Comcast --> Level 3 isn't responsible for what Comcast does with the connection.
Comcast sells a business-class connection to a cafe --> Comcast isn't responsible for what the cafe does with the connection.
The cafe offers Internet access to it's patrons --> The cafe isn't responsible for what it's patrons do with the connection.
What makes a "home" access point any different than a cafe? There's nothing in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that states an ISP has to be a commercial entity.
Comcast sells Internet access to Bob --> Comcast isn't responsible for what Bob does with his Internet connection
Bob sets up an open access point --> Bob isn't responsible for what passers-by (or guests/others in the home) do with his connection.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
- Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um if you are speaking about Tech Support, then I have to disagree with you. I have gotten phone and on site tech support many times. and I am behind a router.
- adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Are you liable if someone walks into your house (which is unlocked), or perhaps on to your property, and kills someone there?
- bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is my ISP liable if I do something illegal? Because it's kinda the same thing.
- rodbibeau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No. It states in the article that a ISP has no liability.
People, read the damn article before commenting. wtf? - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not "kinda the same thing", it *is* the same thing. If you have an open access point, you are an ISP as it is defined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
- rodbibeau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No. It states in the article that a ISP has no liability.
- berean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How would you show that the person on your WiFi wasn't you? That's the bigger question, I think. As far as being liable...remember that guy a while back--it was on Digg--who was using TOR or something on his college PC, and someone used his computer to hack, and he got in trouble? What does that say aboutl liability?
The "legal" answer doesn't really matter here, because the courts and federal government aren't concerned about what's legal or not. They're concerned with if they want you to be in trouble or not. So, better answer than reading the article:
We won't know until someone tries it for us.- Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How would you show that the person on your WiFi wasn't you?"
You shouldn't have to show anything. If your are a defendant the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they come knocking on your door, then they are the ones who have to prove your guilt. You don't have to prove your innocence. - Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you are charged with a crime related to your online activites and you have an unsecured WiFi access point in your house it could provide you with "reasonable doubt". Prosecution has to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt it was you who committed the crime you are charged with.
As time goes on this defense will get weaker and weaker (may be too weak already) but, with open access, it's possible it wasn't you.
- Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How would you show that the person on your WiFi wasn't you?"
- cmyke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Lame. This is like saying if you leave your car door unlocked and someone drives it through a house, it's your fault because you left the door unlocked.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you secure your access point, why is this even an issue?
- Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Because people want to use this as a defense when they are the ones using the connection illegally.
- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2look... an internet connection is not a car, not a peice of fruit, not a house, not a gun, nor a child, a bike, a freeway, or a piece of mail. None of these analogies will hold up in court.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Im kinda pissed that manufacturers of the wifi hardware aren't charged. Every single wifi router should come with WPA2/AES-CCMP encryption enabled by default with a random 63 character key stamped inside the box. If you don't know how to use it, then ***** grow a brain and learn. I guess Im just dreaming here but it's the only solution so ***** off.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree on that, but I don't expect it will ever happen.
WPA and WPA2 are both 100% secure WITH A SUFFICIENTLY UNIQUE AND LONG PSK. 63 characters fits the mold perfectly.
PSK is also incredibly easy to set up, so ignorance and apathy are not excuses.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree on that, but I don't expect it will ever happen.
- whizzbang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the problem is not if you are liable or not, it is if you can prove it wasn't you who was doing the illegal act. Its like if some starts marking nuisance calls from your phone, it will be tricky to prove it wasn't you.
Then again, innocent until proven guilty? - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is an interesting issue.
I would kind of like the law to be that the person who owns the wireless router should not be liable, but then again, I have no strict legal logic to cite for my opinion. It's just what I want.
The law, however, SHOULD place liability on the person who owns the router. Much more liability should be placed on the person who commits unauthorized use of the connection for illegal purposes, and I'm sure that is the case now. - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I just submitted this to the TechDirt site...
I've said it before and I'll say it again: An IP address is not an identity!
Repeat after me: AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT AN IDENTITY!
At best an IP address is a single computer. At worst it is a whole network of computers (which is common these days). There's no way in hell I could ever believe, based on an IP address alone, that a person behind that IP committed any given crime. There's too many other factors and open Wifi is just one of them.
The discussion going on here (in this Digg thread too) is so short-sighted. Most people seem to forget:
* A PC behind that address could be hacked/remotely controlled (ever heard of zombies?)
* A single PC can be used by multiple people. You can't sue a whole household.
* An IP address can be faked. Just because some P2P app says that a client is at 123.45.67.89 doesn't mean it really is.
* A person could have had evidence of copyright violation planted on their computer. Given, it isn't likely, but it is still a possibility. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that this isn't the case. If we just go by IP, it would be too easy to blackmail people.
There's more, but I think you see the point.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"- robjw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tell that to the RIAA
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would if they ever accused me of violating their copyrights. Considering that I don't pirate music (and I don't buy it either--imagine that!) I doubt it will ever come up. I do have an open access point though. The signal reaches out to two local restaurants so I'm sure I've had the occasional guest. I use it as an advertisement for my blog. The access point name is "Riskable.com".
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AHA! a captive portal that won't let them leave your blog untill they've commented on at least 2 articles :D
- scots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
The authorities would likely use the same methods to build a case against abusers of public networks as they would people downloading illegal material at home. After narrowing your identity, seizure of your laptop would be the most likely course of action, after which they would anazlyze your hard drive, browser cache, browser history, and cookies.
People are creatures of habit. If someone downloaded illegal content once or twice from a public network, they would return again. After finding this material on the laptop, the authorities would most likely immediately go for a home search warrant, where no doubt they would find moutains of additional material on CD's and desktop machines.
- EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of the posts here are making the assumption that the perpetrator, that is the person using the Wi-Fi connection for criminal activity, is known. Odds are, if someone is going to use your wireless connection for such things neither you, nor the authorities are going to have any clue who actually did it. That leaves you, and only you, within reach of authority and/or a suit issued by a third party.
So the real threat becomes: at what point do you start attracting lawsuits from 800-lb gorillas, citing "intellectual property theft"? The problem is not, and probably won't ever be, a right/wrong legal issue - if you're not a corporation the size of starbucks, how the hell would you (fiscally) survive such a suit?
Also, anyone care to guess what the outcome would be if your open wi-fi connection were associated with "terrorist acitivty" here in the US? Not worth the trouble IMO. - HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All you have to do is unplug your computer from the wall! I think we can all live with that...
No big deal or anything.- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know your comment was just supposed to be a snide remark, but think about it seriously for a moment: If people turned off their PCs when they weren't in use, they wouldn't be very good zombies now would they? A PC that is off can't be used as a weapon, it can't be compromised, and it can't be used in a crime.
Another, unrelated benefit is that if we all did as you suggest we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil/fossil fuels (unless you're on renewable power).
The down side is that your PC wouldn't get security updates when they're available leaving it vulnerable between the time it boots and the time it downloads/applies the patch. It also means that you can't access the machine remotely in an emergency and if it is a PC owned and administered by your employer they could not properly administer the machine without it being on all the time (since most businesses push out updates at night).
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know your comment was just supposed to be a snide remark, but think about it seriously for a moment: If people turned off their PCs when they weren't in use, they wouldn't be very good zombies now would they? A PC that is off can't be used as a weapon, it can't be compromised, and it can't be used in a crime.
- Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't all the companies producing these default to unprotected access points have to share in the liability as well?
- scots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When it comes to legal advice, caveat emptor. I'm not a lawyer. I completed a business law course last semester.
When considering legal issues, they are usually parsed through the "P" filter. Precedent, Policy, Purposive, and the quasi-P, Practical. Or literally, "can we compare this to a legal decision that has been rendered before", "how does this issue fit within the goals and standards of our legal system", "what is the purpose or intention of this law?", and finally "is this law practical, enforceable, and does it meet plain old common sense?"
You could search Lexus, LexisNexis, Findlaw, and Westlaw to determine if Precedent exists. From the viewpoint of the average Digg user (of which I place myself) - I don't recall seeing any significant news on this matter before on Slashdot, Digg, BoingBoing, et al.
If a patron was sitting at their favorite neighborhood cafe' downloading child porn, I suspect the most likely chain of events -currently- would be..
-Law enforcement contacts ISP
-ISP contacts owner of that IP address (cafe)
-Cafe explains nature of the situation
-Cafe cooperates with law enforcement for the purpose of catching the perpetrator
If you were smart as a business operator and wanted to limit your liability and be a good legal citizen, you should probably run WPA-PSK on your wireless router, change the password each day at open of business, lunchtime, and 5 PM, and require photo ID from patrons in exchange for the password. If Johnny Law comes to your establishment with a warrant, you hand over the photocopies of the 17 drivers licenses you logged between 12 PM and 5 PM and the cops are probably out of your hair.
Smarter yet would be to record a MAC address for each customer and keep an outbound log of web traffic, but you start getting into privacy issues at that point.
If you are a business owner offering WiFi access to patrons, I would recommend dropping $200 for a couple hours worth of research by your company's attorney. It could save significant grief later! :)
S
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd just like to point out that even in your theoretical cafe situation AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT AN IDENTITY. The person's laptop could be remotely controlled, hacked, or another patron in the cafe might be riding on/spoofing their connection (it is actually quite easy). Not only that, but a clever person would wait until the patron is gone then clone their machine's MAC address/IP and the access point would be none the wiser.
Therefore, I would amend your chain of events as follows:
-Law enforcement contacts ISP
-ISP contacts owner of that IP address (cafe)
-Cafe explains nature of the situation
-Cafe cooperates with law enforcement for the purpose of catching the perpetrator
-Law enforcement gets a warrant and searches the suspect's home/computer for evidence of the crime.
-If evidence is found of the crime, the suspect is arrested. However, care must be taken to insure that the machine in question is not compromised in any way. If it is compromised, law enforcement has a duty to continue following the chain of evidence to track down the remote hacker.
That's not to say that a person won't be downloading child porn of their own volition using a compromised machine, but it would be hard for me to find the suspect guilty if there's clear evidence that their laptop had a root kit installed. I'd need to see more evidence. Preferably catching the suspect in the act.
It is far too easy for someone to root a person's machine, plant some child porn, and then notify law enforcement. Serious crimes need serious evidence.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - nickfromdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As scots said, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
However, I am a law student. After reading this chain of posts, I took scots suggestion and searched LexisNexis for precedent. As I suspected, there doesn't appear to be any. Simply put, there are several reasons why:
1) no statute on point -- In order to have criminal liability for a wireless network, there must be a statute that deals with this issue. A quick survey of the law of the United States shows there are no such statutes. The statue must read something to the effect of "it is a crime if a user negligently leaves his wifi connection unsecured." This does not mean that if someone did use your unsecured connection to commit a crime that you would not be a target of an investigation; it means you could not be held criminally liable.
2) no duty exists. There being no criminal liability, the next thing to check is for civil liability. The only possible avenue for a case would be for the injured person to sue the unsecured network owner in negligence. However, there isn't any duty for the network owner to try and protect the unknown party by securing his network, so it seems likely that this suit would fail before it got off the ground.
Terms and conditions are not dispositive to this issue. The reason that free access point users/Starbucks/etc. have terms and conditions of use is to limit their liability to you when someone steals your passwords and information and limit their own liability to third parties by having you indemnify them against anything you might do online. This is what makes the internet work -- anonymity. While the RIAA et al are trying to change this, the current law allows for anonymous usage.
I think a different question would arise if you intentionally opened up your router to the public knowing that it would be used for illegal purposes. The court will apply a different standard, and you might be held liable in that case.
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd just like to point out that even in your theoretical cafe situation AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT AN IDENTITY. The person's laptop could be remotely controlled, hacked, or another patron in the cafe might be riding on/spoofing their connection (it is actually quite easy). Not only that, but a clever person would wait until the patron is gone then clone their machine's MAC address/IP and the access point would be none the wiser.
- ScottBod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like short and informative articles like this, there should be more things like this on digg.
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Kind of a lame article.
IIRC the law defines an ISP as a commercial entity.... so I guess you'd need to file some paperwork with your local municipality and become an LLC at a minimum.
btw... if a terrorist or peidophile uses your WiFi for their vice.... you can bet your going to spend some time in jail. No farking way the DA's office is going to sit idle and let you walk. Not in a million years. If they have to, they will plant evidence. Likely not for copyright infringement... but for something like a terrorist or peidophile? You bet. You'd be considered to aidding, or an accomplace. Especially since it's easy to secure, and every AP has directions for it.... so you must have known how to do so. And IIRC FCC regulations require that you understand how to operate any radio device before you operate it (a nice way of saying RTFM). - spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This situation isn't like your car. It's more like a pen. Access to a pen can let you do a lot of things, just like an open access point. If you leave a pen on the counter of the business you own, where anyone who wants to can get to it, are you responsible if the ink from a bad check or some illegal document gets (somehow) traced back to that pen? Of course not. It's perfectly evident that anyone who wanted to could use the pen, and you can't stand over everyone to make sure that they're doing what you want them to with it. Yes, you could put the pen in a drawer and let people use it only upon request, but why should you?
- rmdl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, you are not responsible because there is no law requiring the owner of tech. devices to secure them. There is a backwards mentality in today's court system where they believe they can rule on a case without sufficient evidence or correct adherence of the defined laws.
If any illegal action is taken on your cable line, there is no evidence. Without evidence, there is no case. You can't just ASSUME the owner was responsible, you must prove it. It's not the owner's job to disprove it, it's the prosecutor's job to prove it - and trust me, 99% of prosecutors out there are tech idiots that don't know dick about routers. Anyone with basic IT skills can run circles around them in court and make them look stupid.
Regardless of what any ISP claims, you are not responsible, even if they make you sign a contract saying so. They have no legal jurisdiction over devices in your household - they can pretend all they want, but it won't hold up in court. Why? Lack of proof it was actually you.
People who frequently run P2P apps and know better ALWAYS leave their routers open for this very reason - and trust me, it's not because it's because they're liable.
..all boils down to what the laws definitively state.- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the jury won't care either, you're a dirty pedophile, it's that simple.
- w0mbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Put ten lawyers in a room and you'll get eleven different opinions.
The law is fuzzy and woolly - until it goes to court even the lawyers are just speculating. - phlll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If someone was using your connection you would probably be held liable to a point: in the case of kiddie porn the police would raid your house. You will be arrested and all of your computer equipment (ALL of it!) will be seized for investigation. All your PCs, CDs, routers, printers, everything will be siezed to make a case against you.
The cops will book you (hopefully you can make bail, but don't count on it if the activity has been going on for a while) and your computers will be investigated bit by bit for the illegal activity. When they find nothing, hopefully they'll realize that you were probably a victim of a driveby.
After a few weeks with no real evidence against you, you will recieve your computer equipment back.
With the kp, they're not looking for MP3s, so they usually won't care about piracy.
however, in the case of the RIAA, you will simply be sued in civil court. They'll try and bankrupt you. In civil law its much easier to try and prove fault.
Either way, lock down your system. It isn't worth the hassle of taking the fall for your pedo neighbor. - tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2even if u secure your connection, it's possible for someone to get on it. either by cracking it (if its weak wep) or any number of other ways to get the key (social engineering, eavsdropping, etc).
and for every person out there with secure wifi, there are 10 more without it. from an attackers perspective (plus the fact that MAC addresses are spoofable (supported in most firmware wifi cards)) its obviously an easy way to do illegal stuff online.
from the victims perrspective, if they did everything they thought they could, and someone still got on their wifi then I really dont see how they could be liable.- JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if they did everything they thought they could, and someone still got on their wifi then I really dont see how they could be liable."
But think of it this way: If they did everything they could to lock it down and someone still did something illegal on their WiFi, then that "someone" was most likely THEM! Especially in the eyes of the law. It's a LOT more likely that the owner of the wireless router was the one who did the illegal activity then it is that someone cracked your WEP key.
That's a pretty good argument for keeping you WAP unsecured. So that way you at least can claim it was someone else. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0don't forget that with a hacked "secured" network, you are going to look a lot less inocent.
- JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if they did everything they thought they could, and someone still got on their wifi then I really dont see how they could be liable."
- JayWright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have been using my neighbor's WiFi for over a year now.. I have a wireless repeater setup and everything to increase the strength in my house. I don't do anything illegal, with the exception of an occasional song or two. But *****, if you leave your access point open then it's your fault. Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't want people using your *****, then keep it locked down! Anyway, that being said I'm all for open WiFi!
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Two issues in this thread:
1. There is an amazing number of bad analogies in this thread. Here's a better one: You leave an ax in plain site on your porch. Somebody steals the ax and commits a murder. The police find the bloody ax with your fingerprints all over it at the scene of the crime. Is that going to be enough to convict you? Doubtful, but it could certainly make your life miserable for awhile. You could have avoided the whole thing by locking your tools up. Same with wi-fi.
2. There is a *HUGE* difference between criminal and civil cases. In the example above they would have to show you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case--say by the RIAA--there is no such burden, and no presumption of innocence. All the RIAA would have to do is show that it was likely you that committed the crime. You would have an equal burden to prove it WASN'T you. Proving it was your wi-fi that was being used could quite possibly be enough to convict you in that case. I certainly wouldn't want to chance it.- phlll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You "get it" so much more than 90% of the posters here.
The open access point will only kick you in the balls in the end. Plausible deniability sounds great when you aren't sitting in a jail cell because someone using your IP has been luring young boys in chat rooms.
- phlll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You "get it" so much more than 90% of the posters here.
- gjscds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A buddy of mine actually had both of his computers confiscated by the FBI. Apparently someone had spoofed his IP (or maybe hacked into his wirless) and made a whole bunch of fraudulent purchases. About 8 months later, the FBI decided to give him his computers back… with no real apology or comment on how the situation went down. If I recall correctly, all they said is “you are no longer a suspect.”
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yah. you guys go ahead and take legal advice from some guys blog. GENIOUS!
Go through some of his links to his other rantings, and a few layers down, he actually provides court cases that would invalidate much of his argument. One of the best ones clearly defines what a service providers is, and why YOU AREN'T ONE. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you say you're all for open wifi, think about this. What if some moron decides to jump on your network and start downloading some illegal songs? Would you want to be involved in that mess? Seriously open wifi doesn't work, it would be a great idea, but the public doesn't know too much about these kinds of issues. It is very insecure.
- prthealien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It sounds like a valid defense. I'll open my wireless router and delete the logs if the RIAA ever knocks on my door. If they can't prove which person downloaded the music, they can't prosecute anyone!
- riadlem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a research survey about this.
http://digg.com/technology/How_do_people_use_Wi-Fi_Sharing,_Legal_Issues_and_Ease_of_Use - dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2my thinking goes that a wifi owner should be no more liable than a phone company is when someone uses it's service to make threatening phone calls, a cable company when someone underage watchs softcore porn on late night premium channels or the owner of a wall when somone uses it to grafiti an obscene or racist message.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by