dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-13 09:49:13: Several of the mass copyright lawsuit outfits (like the U.S. Copyright Group) have been claiming for some time now that simply having an open Wi-Fi hotspot is "negligence" and a crime. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

Of course it isn't.

Just because I leave my front door unlocked, doesn't mean that anyone can just come in.

However, I do believe that when you have a wifi network, you carry a certain level of responsibility (especially to your ISP, whom you agree to their ToS) on anything that happens on your Internet connection.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
said by Rob:

Just because I leave my front door unlocked, doesn't mean that anyone can just come in.

However, I do believe that when you have a wifi network, you carry a certain level of responsibility (especially to your ISP, whom you agree to their ToS) on anything that happens on your Internet connection.

Great analogy, however should you then be responsible if said thieves steal your car keys and use your car to rob a bank? Then the cops come to your house and take you to jail or try to get you to pay for what they stole?! No one would believe that yet that is what they are trying to do on a digital scale.

There are so many people living in condominiums and apartments that hack aka steal other peoples internet. I don't think victims should be forced to pay for something they didn't do. If a thief wants to download the newest movie he is going to use someone else's internet if he can and not his own.

There has got to be a better way and this isn't it.
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Everyone has an obligation to make sure that their Internet connection is being used in an appropriate manner. You may not be able to stop every attack, but you have to be responsible enough that you can make sure to mitigate any attacks. Simply buying a router, connecting and saying "I don't know how to secure my network" isn't sufficient, IMO. If a person is unable to take the necessary steps to ensure that they can monitor the security of their network, then they have no business buying a router.

It's the same with a credit card. You are protected against fraud, but if you fail to take notify your credit card company as soon as you are aware of the fraud charges, you may be liable.

So at the end of the day, I believe we all carry a level of responsibility to ourselves, to our ISP, and to the Internet to make sure that our connection is secure.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3
reply to Rob
I agree with you there.

This is how I wish it would work in these cases.

However the process gets started, your IP comes up as having done something wrong. This of course is your public IP, and by working with the ISP's, they figure out who had that IP at the time. You get the standard warning (either letter or e-mail) with your public IP, and the date/time of the incident.

You as the "owner" of the WiFi device, go into your logs, and pull up all the info on who was connected to the WiFi device (or, your network as a whole) at the time. Then, doing research on every system, you verify what action was taking place at the time of the event, to see if the activity matches.

Since most routers (both Wired and Wireless) log the MAC address of each system, you can then go through all the ones that were connected. Once you have verified that the system in question was not one you own, you now have the MAC address of the device that connected at the time of the alleged violation.

From there I would think you would be able to do some kind of search on the MAC, to try to figure out who the real "thief" is, and then track that person (or people) down.

Is that a lot of work? Of course it is. Does it make a lot of assumptions that every router / WiFi device has the logs enabled at the proper level to display the information needed? Yes it does. Could this cost a lot of money in research? You bet.

My point is this: If you take the time, effort, and the money to do your job right, then there is no issues with having open WiFi's, as you would be able to find out exactly who did whatever it was they were not suppose to do on that connection.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


anon6123

@mich.net
The only issue with that is most routers only log the last couple hundred entries. By the time the police actually get enough info to come knock on your door it's probably going to be at least a week after the event. So even if you are tech savvy enough to even know what a MAC address is (probably 99% of people don't) you would also need to be running a syslog server to actually hold all of your old information. I would wager that not even 1/4 of the people that post here could actually produce logs from 2 weeks ago.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Do We Need New Precedent?

What does the law do if you leave the keys in your car, someone takes it and commits a crime? What if they are caught by a red light camera? What if caught by a speed camera? What if they have an accident, kill someone and flee the scene before identified but witnesses identify your license plate?

Go one step further. What if someone steals your license plate, puts it on their car and the same things occur?


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
reply to plencnerb

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by plencnerb:

Since most routers (both Wired and Wireless) log the MAC address of each system, you can then go through all the ones that were connected.

Most only log the MACs of active devices.
said by plencnerb:

From there I would think you would be able to do some kind of search on the MAC, to try to figure out who the real "thief" is, and then track that person (or people) down.

You cannot find out who has a certain MAC. Especially when spoofing a MAC is trivial and someone with "proper intentions" may spoof it to something else each time... Yes, I can make my MAC appear as 00:00:00:00:00:01...

kerya666

join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL
reply to rradina

Re: Do We Need New Precedent?

None of these will be put on that person owning the vehicle as criminal negligence, and it shouldn't- exactly what the article says.

What happens as a result of those mentioned above is a whole another issue; but I can imagine it being very "unfun" proving being innocent while accused of being guilty.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Criminal vs Civil - proving an open WiFi doesn't get you off

Lots of talk about criminal negligence here. But most copyright infringement cases are civil and not criminal. And proving you have an open WiFi network won't get you off the hook in a civil proceeding, even if it might in a criminal proceeding.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


Jaybird

@sbcglobal.net
reply to kerya666

Re: Do We Need New Precedent?

What is "unfun"? I look it up in my Webster dictionary but there is no such word.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FifthE1ement

Re: Of course it isn't.

Court can't prove you drove the car beyond a reasonable doubt, if you in fact did not.

Same thing with hijacked internet connection. They need to have more evidence than an IP address to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it's enough for an indictment, which can be used to do a reasonable search for evidence.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

2 recommendations

reply to plencnerb
The burden is on me to prove my innocence?


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
reply to Rob
There is a lot of small businesses/restaurants that offer free wi-fi to guests to help bring in customers in a hard economy. It works and brings in a lot of younger kids and students. But if every IP=Judge/Jurry/Guilty/Pay Now these small mom and pops will be forced out of another small nitch where they can compete with big business.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
reply to Rob
Everyone has an obligation to make sure that their Internet connection is being used in the freest manner. You may not be able to give everyone access, but you have to be responsible enough that you can make sure to increase access. Simply buying a router, connecting and saying "I don't know how to set up an isolated AP" isn't sufficient, IMO. If a person is unable to take the necessary steps to ensure that they can provide an unmonitored open network, then they have no business buying a router.

It's the same with a credit card. You are protected against fraud, but if you fail to take notify your credit card company as soon as you are aware of the fraud charges, you may be liable.

So at the end of the day, I believe we all carry a level of responsibility to ourselves, to our ISP, and to the Internet to make sure that our connection is open.


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Are you implying that freest & open should mean that we can do whatever we want on the Internet, damn the laws?

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5

Re: Criminal vs Civil - proving an open WiFi doesn't get you off

The standard of proof may be different, but there has never been a requirement that you have to prove your innocence. Now think about this for a second. Let's suppose that you were accused of downloading copyrighted material. Would you prefer to have had an open router or a secured one that got hacked? We all know that WEP is hardly above no security at all, but WPA and WPA2 can even be cracked if someone wants to put in enough effort, but good luck convincing a jury of that. So, when you go to trial, what is a jury more likely to believe: that you had an open router that someone connected to or that your secured router was hacked? Granted, it's less likely that someone will take the trouble to hack your router, but, if they do, you're royally screwed because the jury isn't going to believe you unless they happen to know how this stuff works. Odds are, they're going to be a bunch of people who have no clue and will believe whatever the plaintiff's lawyer says.

And that is one of the problems with using an IP as a basis to accuse someone of copyright infringement.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Perhaps a new law should be explored..

Just as swimming pools have their own regulations for fencing, because of the extreme hazard they represent, prehaps home/personal networking/network attached devices(including cell phones and wifi enabled tablets, laptops, etc.) may need an owner responsiblity clause.
You, the owner of a device MUST be sure it is reasonably secured.
I'd worry less about it being used as an avenue of theft (though that is a concern) and more about an injection point for malware.

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
reply to rradina

Re: Do We Need New Precedent?

In many place you are responsible to secure your vehicle, and leaving the keys in would result in a fine, and MIGHT let your insurance company off the hook for damages.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to plencnerb

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by plencnerb:

You as the "owner" of the WiFi device, go into your logs, and pull up all the info on who was connected to the WiFi device (or, your network as a whole) at the time. Then, doing research on every system, you verify what action was taking place at the time of the event, to see if the activity matches.

Epic fail.

There's no law which:
a) prohibits you from doing a factory reset on your router any time you (or Starbucks) wants to.
b) there is no law which requires you (or Starbucks) to keep a log of all MAC address which have connected to your router.
c) there is no law against you changing the MAC address of your device at any time of your choosing.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to tshirt

Re: Perhaps a new law should be explored..

said by tshirt:

Just as swimming pools have their own regulations for fencing, because of the extreme hazard they represent, prehaps home/personal networking/network attached devices(including cell phones and wifi enabled tablets, laptops, etc.) may need an owner responsiblity clause.
You, the owner of a device MUST be sure it is reasonably secured.
I'd worry less about it being used as an avenue of theft (though that is a concern) and more about an injection point for malware.

If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

If that were to come to pass, ALL devices manufactured before the date of the law are grandfathered to permit the factory-shipped condition, ie. wide open unsecured.

When seatbelt laws were brought in, older vehicles did not have to add seatbelts. Older cars don't have to meet today's emission standards, and so on.....

Unsecured routers are NOT weapons of mass destruction, despite what the xxPA says, and have no need of regulation in this regard.

jjjacer

join:2004-05-07
Jefferson, WI

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt
The biggest issue i see is that people are dumb idiots and dont know crap. (i do tech support for hotel internet)

most people dont know how to setup wireless, they think its all magic and is done for them by wireless computer gods. they plug in the linkskees device and they then click on it in there wireless utility, (or have their 3 yr old do it for them),

also these are the same people who keep clicking on every ad for free crap who get virus's and bots and make my life a living hell.

sad thing is this is probably 90% of internet users, at least in the USA

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

Of course it's not.

The only people that seem to think that way are IP trolls and the shills over here at BBR.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to Rob

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Rob:

Just because I leave my front door unlocked, doesn't mean that anyone can just come in.

However, I do believe that when you have a wifi network, you carry a certain level of responsibility (especially to your ISP, whom you agree to their ToS) on anything that happens on your Internet connection.

What a load of shit.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to jjjacer

Re: Perhaps a new law should be explored..

said by jjjacer:

The biggest issue i see is that people are dumb idiots and dont know crap. (i do tech support for hotel internet)

most people dont know how to setup wireless, they think its all magic and is done for them by wireless computer gods. they plug in the linkskees device and they then click on it in there wireless utility, (or have their 3 yr old do it for them),

also these are the same people who keep clicking on every ad for free crap who get virus's and bots and make my life a living hell.

sad thing is this is probably 90% of internet users, at least in the USA

Exactly. And most of these people will never care for such geeky things, nor should they.

It's not their problem to police for IP trolls or the FBI.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tshirt
I agree that the first step is EDUCATION
so a required step in the instructions should point out the problem, the need for security, and instructions.
If they could use WPS (and nobody should now) they could certainly include a one button "follow these easy steps to attach securely to your home wireless network".
We have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 recommendation

reply to Rob

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Rob:

Are you implying that freest & open should mean that we can do whatever we want on the Internet, damn the laws?

What 'Law' says you MUST secure your router or put a lock on your door? You've been reading too many sheeple stories. Perhaps it's time for your cool aid...

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to FFH5

Re: Criminal vs Civil - proving an open WiFi doesn't get you off

said by FFH5:

Lots of talk about criminal negligence here. But most copyright infringement cases are civil and not criminal. And proving you have an open WiFi network won't get you off the hook in a civil proceeding, even if it might in a criminal proceeding.

Are you saying that having an open WiFi makes you guilty of copyright infringement? The burden of proof is still on the plaintiff to show that it was YOU sharing their material... not just that it was done on your connection.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Kamus

Re: Perhaps a new law should be explored..

said by Kamus:


It's not their problem to police for IP trolls or the FBI.

Protecting YOUR computer and sharing responsiblity for greater usablity of the internet, by reducing spam, virus, and botnet traffic is to everyone's* advanatage.

* Even fileshares would benefit, unless you are such a leech that you rely on other peoples open connections, in which case YOU are the problem.

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to anon6123

Re: Of course it isn't.

I know I cannot. My router only logs as much as its internal memory can hold, and then deletes the oldest. By the time I get the infringement notice(which takes about 2 weeks to get to you), those logs are gone forever. If I have an extremely busy network day, my logs hold less than 24 hours worth of info, and really, I think they hold about 24 hours worth at most anyways.

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: Criminal vs Civil - proving an open WiFi doesn't get you off

you can go thru jury selection. Your accuser in a civil case is likely going to try and get people they feel would support their cause and be tech illiterate, whereas, you would be trying to get people that would support your cause and be tech literate. Jury selection alone would take awhile, and at some point the judge would intervene and say you are both stuck with what you have. Sadly, stupid people cannot, and will not, learn tech, and stupid seems to spread, so you would lose on that front.