What is Digg?123 Comments
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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" - 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, -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. - 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. - 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. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think I've finally come up with an analogy for using an open wi-fi point that holds up.
I work at a University. It's not unusual to see tables set up with food in public areas. Sometimes these buffets are part of an open house and open to anybody--sometimes they're for a specific group. It can be hard to tell the difference if there's nobody watching the food and no signs. If I can't tell what the food is for I might still help myself to some fruit and cookies. The food might not have been intended for me but if it wasn't they shouldn't have left it out in the open unattended. Of course if I grab the entire tray of fried chicken and run it would be wrong. It's all a matter of degrees.
It's the same with wifi. If you BROADCAST the availability of an OPEN access point into a public area then you ought to expect people to use it. It would be rude to download gigabytes of torrents off your connection every day, but I see no problem in using it to occasionally check e-mail. If you've made even a token attempt to secure or cloak your access point then everybody ought to stay away. The only way to differentiate your private connection from intentionally open access points is if you give us some kind of sign.
Most analogies fall into one of two groups. The first is "just because I leave my door unlocked doesn't give you the right to come in and take things". This analogy fails because it is understood that a home is private property. I don't believe their can be any such assumption with wi-fi because there are many access points that are intentionally made available to the public. The analogy also fails because in this case the "property" being stolen is being actively transmitted into public areas or onto property owned by others.
The second group of analogies go something like this: "If somebody puts a lamp on the outside of their home and that light reaches the sidewalk, I'm allowed to make use of it. If I read stand there reading a book using the light from the lamp it's not stealing." These analogies fail because when you use somebody's bandwidth you are in fact using something of theirs which would not otherwise have been lost. Whatever bandwidth is consumed affects the amount of bandwidth which is available to the provider.
The real question is whether an open access point is tantamount to an invitation. While morally I think the question is open to debate I think the real-world issue is decided by two factors.
1. There are many access points which are intentionally (and legally) left open for public access.
2. It is difficult or impossible to differentiate the coffee house's free wi-fi from Joe Schmoe's personal access point. Technically there is little difference and it is impractical to locate the owner of an access point to ask permission.
It seems to me that given those two factors it should either be legal to use an open access point or they ought to draft legislation requiring legally open access points to broadcast some kind of signal identifying themselves as such.
It occurs to me that there is another analogy that might hold up. If you plant a fruit tree on your property but let the branches grow over my property is it legal for me to pick the fruit? - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, because things are different with computers.
- 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" - 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. - 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.
- 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 - 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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.) - 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! - 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? - 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?
- 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.
- j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I seriously hate analogies when it comes to this subject. Nobody ever seems to get it right. Nobody using your connection is really trespassing like they would be if they just walked into your unlocked house. I like to think of it more as that person is visiting.
If somebody knocks before they come in and another member of the family automatically lets them in, it would be REALLY hard to sue that person for "using your space." If you can't control your own family, it really doesn't make sense to be suing other people for consuming your precious living space either, though. It does however make sense to sue that person if you tell them to get out and they stick around making it hard for you to get things done around the house.
Somebody who is just using their wireless card has a list of available access points and has the ability to simply click "connect." The wireless card then asks the router for an IP address, and in most cases allows your card inside automatically. If you can't control your own router, it really doesn't make much sense to be suing people for using your precious bandwidth. If you can somehow find out who is physically accessing your network and tell that person to stop, and they continue to use your network, it would then be fair to apply the appropriate charges.
Simply making it illegal to enter any body's property or wireless network without direct permission would be HORRIBLE. There is such thing as implied permission, people. I can cut through some body's yard if I want to and there's no fence there, if they want to stop me from ever doing it again all they need to do is tell me to stop. Those people wouldn't be able to chase me down and sue me for doing it, the judge would just ask why they didn't use a fence. Just because that person didn't know what a fence is or how to install one wouldn't be a valid excuse for the judge that knows better. - 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....
- 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. - 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
- 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. - 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. - 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/+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" - 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. - 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" - 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?
- geodanny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even though this guy and the RIAA are blowing hot air, there is still some justification for you to hide your access point and turn on encryption. Essentially, to avoid being inconvenienced.
For one, it will help a little with security. Second, it would take a lot of somebody's money to defend you in civil court if the RIAA sued. And third, it'll take you weeks or a lot of money to get your equipment back from the Feds after they come knocking on your door because some nit used your connection to distribute kiddie porn.
Sure, broadcast your connection; just understand that there is risk. - 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.”
- ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was thinking you would be more slander myself...
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I completely agree, EtherGnat. I think that fruit analogy is the best for the open wifi issue.
- Anchoret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Commenting convoluted arguments, illogical analogies and typical Digg jugheadedness aside, this article actually confirms the opposite of its titled mood; the bottom line is that what other people do on your WiFi can get you into a messy, disruptive and expensive legal situation in which you can probably, eventually escape civil liability or criminal conviction.
If you don't want to risk that very serious derailment of your life, secure your network as best you can. I've explained how in previous posts.
Stupid article. - 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. - 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" - 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? - 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. - photojunky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wonder why hackers get prosecuted - it is not their fault that a corporation failed to take the necessary steps to secure their network ;)
- 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. - 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?
- 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? - ScottBod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like short and informative articles like this, there should be more things like this on digg.
- Zephyrspecial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ISP's have been found to not be accountable for how their customers use their service. By providing free wireless access, wouldn't you be acting as an ISP? That simple argument should prove that you are not technically liable for what someone does with your open WiFi connection.
The problem is that if someone *is* doing something over your open WiFi connection, and it gets traced to your IP, and you are registered with your ISP not as a business but as an individual subscriber, it will initially appear that you are the party responsible for whatever was done. At that point you may have some 'splainin' to do, and it could definately be a major hassle. -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is