dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
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. ..


Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

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.

FifthE1ement
Tech Nut
join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

FifthE1ement

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

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.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

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.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

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.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

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

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 recommendation

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

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...

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Robert:

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...

No, I was referring to the copyright and infringement laws.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert See ProfileNo, I was referring to the copyright and infringement laws. [/BQUOTE :

They require people to secure their routers and put locks on their doors? Where? Can you site the statute and paragraph?

Because you are a sheeple willing to drink the cool aid on command you may believe such nonsense, but don't expect much in the way of support from intelligent people. WE KNOW it's not good to drink the cool aid.


Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

I think you're misunderstanding (and not sure why you have to name call?). I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

I think you're misunderstanding (and not sure why you have to name call?). I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed.

Please site them Statute and paragraph and explain how they relate to "securing" routers and putting locks on doors. Because they exist in the minds of sheeple does not make it so... sorry.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?

Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Robert:

Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?

Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that.

I never claimed or implied that there was a law that required people to secure their router or put locks on their door.

If I did, then it was a mistake -- can you please reference me the post I made such a claim?

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Robert:

Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?

Of whatever law you claim requires people to "secure" routers and put locks on doors. That was your claim and WE want to know the laws (Statute and paragraph) that support that.

I never claimed or implied that there was a law that required people to secure their router or put locks on their door.

If I did, then it was a mistake -- can you please reference me the post I made such a claim?

You've been implying it with every post. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW, plain and simple, no matter WHAT the sheeple bleet.
meeeeeeeeee

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

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

WHAT LAWS??? If YOU wish to give up your rights and freedoms, go right ahead, but the rest of us will pass on the cool aid... thanks.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Robert:

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

WHAT LAWS??? If YOU wish to give up your rights and freedoms, go right ahead, but the rest of us will pass on the cool aid... thanks.

Sir, I think you've passed on more than just cool aid.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 edit

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by Robert:

Sir, I think you've passed on more than just cool aid.

I won't take a pass on FACTS. If you state (or even imply) there are laws, be prepared to cite them. More and more courts (as this article very clearly points out) are ruling that there is nothing wrong, criminal or negligent with having an open router.
meeeeeeeeee

1 edit

1 recommendation

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

"damn the laws"? WHAT LAWS? Perhaps instead of bleeting and spreading misinformation you should actually read what you are commenting on BEFORE you comment. Spreading misinformation actually damages many open router initiatives and deprives people of Internet access.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

1 edit

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

Really? I've already explained this. I think you need to revisit the posts above.
Expand your moderator at work
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon
said by Robert:

I meant that even though you may believe the Internet should be a free and open medium, there are laws that must be followed.

The problem here is a common one. You seem to be equating 'free and open Internet' with some sense of lawlessness. If not, then you are simply stating two unrelated facts: ie, Even though the Internet should be free and open, people still have to stop at red lights. Of course, stating two unrelated facts like this would be pointless, confusing, and is not relevant to the discussion.

The idea of a free and open Internet access does not in any way imply the breaking of laws.

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

1 edit

FLATLINE

Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

Its pretty clear meeeeeeeeee simply doesn't understand that their are no such laws but that doesn't mean you can just leave a network unsecure. People get in trouble with the law all the time in situations where there were no specific laws covering the subject but were charged and in many cases rightfully so under a more generalized law. There's also the possibility of civil suits to think about.

Whether you choose to understand this stuff or not there's always the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree, disagree. You know why we know this? Because people ARE getting dragged into court over this issue and it is costing them time and money. Just secure your freaking networks.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

I am not sure what you read but I think meeeeee said quite clearly that "THERE IS NO SUCH LAW, plain and simple..."

And strangely there are unsecured WiFi connections all over the place. I am posting from a hotel's free unencrypted WiFi at the moment... the local library near me also has unencrypted WiFi as do many businesses around here. This hotel doesn't even direct you to a TOS agreement (which they should).

Simply walking down the street exposes you to the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree or disagree. That is not a valid reason to live as a recluse.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee to FLATLINE

Member

to FLATLINE
said by FLATLINE:

Its pretty clear meeeeeeeeee simply doesn't understand that their are no such laws but that doesn't mean you can just leave a network unsecure. People get in trouble with the law all the time in situations where there were no specific laws covering the subject but were charged and in many cases rightfully so under a more generalized law. There's also the possibility of civil suits to think about.

Whether you choose to understand this stuff or not there's always the possibility of getting dragged into court whether you agree, disagree. You know why we know this? Because people ARE getting dragged into court over this issue and it is costing them time and money. Just secure your freaking networks.

I full well understand that some Law Enforcement Agencies do sloppy work, inconvenience many people and trample their rights. This is what law suits are for. A few big settlements and suddenly Law Enforcement Agencies learn that THEY are NOT above the law.

Several members of Congress are currently investigating USDOJ and TSA for just such sloppy work and hopefully will put a stop to it. Now several Federal and State Courts are also coming to the conclusion that citizen's rights cannot be trampled by sloppy work. No, I WILL NOT give up my rights because some Law Enforcement Agencies do sloppy work. Our country was NOT founded by people who rolled over and died because it's the easy thing to do. They did what was right, as will I, even if it's not easy. Either you fight for your rights or you lose them. Things worth having are seldom easy.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to Robert

MVM

to Robert
said by Robert:

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.

However, until the states enact legislation requiring users to secure their routers, the only parties with standing to sue for negligence in state courts are the ISPs. Copyright Trolls are on notice: Take it to the U.S. Courts and file for contributory infringement.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to FifthE1ement

Member

to FifthE1ement
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.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to FifthE1ement

Member

to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

said by Robert:

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.

Except that's not the same at all. Your internet connection is a contract between you and your isp. You are responsible for all the data that goes through that ethernet port on your modem. The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime, but you still signed a contract with the ISP to pay for whatever data went over your line. They are fundamentally different.

One is contract law, the other is criminal

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by prairiesky:

You are responsible for all the data that goes through that ethernet port on your modem. The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime,

Working from that premise:
ISP's would bear full responsibility for illegal content carried across their networks.
So would Peer Providers and Hosting Colo centers.

And as long as we're riding the Swell-'o-Justice, we'll imprison the Overlords of the DNS Root for being accomplices to crime.
After all, ignorance is never an excuse (corporate executives excepting).

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

1 recommendation

TomS_

MVM

Re: Of course it isn't.

Re ISPs being responsible for their users actions, see iiNet v AFACT.

At least in Australia, ISPs are not responsible. AFACT even appealed that decision, twice if I remember correctly, and were dismissed both times.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to Noah Vail

Member

to Noah Vail
you completely misread or misunderstood that. You're responsible to pay for the data that goes through your modem. That is a contract between you and your provider.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: Of course it isn't.

said by prariesky :

You are responsible for all the data that goes through that ethernet port on your modem. The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime, but you still signed a contract with the ISP to pay for whatever data went over your line.

Your statement is very similar to Rob's and just as confusing. You state a premise that 'you are responsible for all the data...' without clarifying what you mean by 'responsible'. You then make a statement that "the argument is being made that you're not legally responsible...' BUT 'you still signed a contract to pay for the data...' These two statements have nothing to do with each other and should not be linked with 'BUT'. It sounds very much like:

"The argument being made is that you're not legally responsible for any illegal content as you didn't commit the crime, but I still have to pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow". The two thoughts are unrelated.

You are unclear about your use of 'responsible' (apparently you mean 'financially responsible', as in: to pay for the data) then you use the phrase 'legally responsible' in the next sentence. Sorry but it is just confusing.

No one is disputing that you have a contract and a responsibility to pay your ISP for the data even if that data usage is from someone leeching off of your Internet. That is not being questioned by anyone. There is really no reason to confuse the issue with obviousities.

The fact is that you are not legally responsible for the tort nor crime of copyright infringement committed by someone else on your unsecured WiFi connection. You can be guilty of 'contributory infringement' if you provide someone with Internet knowing they are going to commit copyright infringement but that is not the same thing as running an 'open WiFi connection'. It is pretty clear-cut legally, I don't know why so many people have a problem with it (other than the corporate shills who simply want people to believe whatever is best for the industry).
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to FifthE1ement

Member

to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

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.

Well, that's criminal law, not civil law, so there's an entirely different burden of proof that needs to be met. A better analogy would be made from the perspective of a civil case. Imagine that you leave your keys in the car and the neighbor's kid takes it for a joyride. During this joyride he seriously injures himself and/or a third party. In such an instance you can expect a lawsuit, that you will likely lose, after which you'll be on the hook for five to seven digits worth of damages. You may even be held criminally responsible (reckless endangerment comes to mind), though as already noted that's an entirely different animal.

Now, obviously an open wi-fi network does not have the potential to cause physical harm and death. However, that doesn't mean that it can't inflict financial damages on a third party. The case law has yet to catch up to this reality and it will certainly be interesting to see how it evolves in the coming years. It's worth noting that at least one country (Germany) mandates that you secure your wi-fi network. I highly doubt that will happen in the United States, but we may well reach the point where an open wi-fi network is considered an attractive nuisance.
JimF
Premium Member
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

JimF to FifthE1ement

Premium Member

to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

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.

No, under the criminal law you would not be liable, since the theves would have to make an active effort, and have an intent to steal. But if you have a swimming pool that is unfenced and a neighbor child drowns in it, you will probably be liable for money damages under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine. You might also be liable for criminal negligence of some sort, depending on your intent in building the pool and how you used and protected it.

In the case of a router, you are actually sending the signals off of your property. That might be considered an invitation for others to use them for any purpose. If you knew that they were being used for illegal purposes, or even knew that it was reasonably likely, then you might be liable. It is a new technology, and the law is still developing.

plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242

plencnerb to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
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

••••••

whiteshp
join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

whiteshp to Robert

Member

to Robert
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.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to Robert

Member

to Robert
said by Robert:

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.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to Robert

Member

to Robert
There is a law in Maryland that says if you leave your keys in your car, you can be held responsible for anything that happens.

That being said, you will not stop a determined attacker.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

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?

•••••••••••••

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

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.

••••••••••

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

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.

••••••••••••••
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

Kamus

Member

Of course it's not.

The only people that seem to think that way are IP trolls and the shills over here at BBR.
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA

averagedude

Member

Re: Of course it's not.

said by Kamus:

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

^^2nd^^

Bogden
Premium Member
join:2000-07-11
Richmond, VA

Bogden to Kamus

Premium Member

to Kamus
^^^Third^^^
GreatBambino
join:2002-05-13
Rexburg, ID

GreatBambino

Member

I am glad to find this out.

Some person a year ago or so used hacked into my router and downloaded some porn and I got a lawsuit about it. Glad to find out that California stuck it down because that's where the lawsuit came from.

I had a pretty secure password. Didn't change it as usual as I should've but I was going to a religious school and was on my last semester and didn't think it would be a problem.

Practically everyone in my complex got free internet through the complex anyways so I never though I would get hacked.