dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
952
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Agreed: Shared Responsibility

I would have to agree with her. At some point you have to share responsibility. Their marketing department, billing department and technology department should all share the responsibility being piss poor and return every bit of her overage charges.

Her router was secured. Linksys does not implement any weaker of a WEP/WPA connection then any other maker so this ISP trying to off load this on to them is silly at best.



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

said by Skippy25:

Her router was secured.

Was it?Or was her SSID Linksys and her password "password"?


En Enfer
This account has been compromised

join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
kudos:4
reply to Skippy25

Let's look at it from another angle: if there's a sicko sharing kiddy-porn throught your secured or unsecured router, the cops are gonna knock at whose door? The one where the modem is.

The router is the customer's responsability. Period.

I'd love to see you blame "Their marketing department, billing department and technology department" if such situation ever happens.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

That is like saying if someone steals your car and kills someone with it that you will go to jail for it. Will you be looked at as a suspect? Of course, but in the end you will not be held responsible.


cghh

join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA

When you are initially arrested for the kiddy porn, your name and picture will be all over the news on TV and in the newspapers. When you are vindicated, it will be maybe a couple lines on a back page somewhere. You may not be convicted of anything, but so much for your reputation.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to Lazlow

said by Lazlow:

That is like saying if someone steals your car and kills someone with it that you will go to jail for it. Will you be looked at as a suspect? Of course, but in the end you will not be held responsible.

You may not go to jail, but you may find yourself sued by the victim's family for negligently contributing to the accident. Say, if you left the keys in the car.

Likewise, if you left the keys in the car, your insurance company may not pay. They'll definitely cancel your policy, or raise your premium so high that you'll be taking the bus.

It's all a matter of public standards. 30 years ago it was common to leave your car running when you went to the store. If it was stolen, 99% of the public would ridicule anyone who suggested the owner was partly responsible.

Today, it's exactly the opposite.

So, with an unsecured (or, poorly secured) router, it's really a question of what the majority believe is irresponsible.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

If no password had been set then you would have a point(keys left in the car) but the router was secured(keys not in car). So by your own analogy you have cleared the router's owner.

As far as the arrests; they generally go in with a search warrant before an arrest is made. Law enforcement has already seen instance of router hijack and modem cloning and try not to make these kinds of mistakes.


watice

join:2008-11-01
New York, NY
reply to En Enfer

said by En Enfer:

Let's look at it from another angle: if there's a sicko sharing kiddy-porn throught your secured or unsecured router, the cops are gonna knock at whose door? The one where the modem is.

With child porn, the charges are brought on whomever shared the porn. They may knock on your door, just like they may knock on the ISPs door. I see your point though, in civil matters you should be responsible for the terms you agreed to.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to Lazlow

said by Lazlow:

If no password had been set then you would have a point(keys left in the car) but the router was secured(keys not in car).

Do we know the router was secured? If the password was weak, would that be equivalent to leaving the keys on the seat instead of in the ignition?

I'm just saying it wouldn't be unusual to hold someone responsible (civilly at least) for misuse of their property. Negligence of securing their property is a sliding scale. And, routers may not have the level of consensus cars do. But, give it time. I think people are increasingly less sympathetic to unsecured access points. I see 1/10th the number I did 10 years ago.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

"because someone hacked into her password-protected router"

From Karl's article.

I think people are less sympathetic to unsecured (meaning open or not password protected) access points.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by Lazlow:

"because someone hacked into her password-protected router"

From Karl's article.

I know. But, that could have been their SSID. Or, phone number.

I see people do that frequently. It's the first thing I try. I got into a retail store's wifi a month go using their phone number as the password.

You may be right that mediocre protection wouldn't be automatically condemned by the average person. The average person may not understand it much. Yet.


dsldude08
Premium
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

You may not go to jail, but you may find yourself sued by the victim's family for negligently contributing to the accident. Say, if you left the keys in the car.

But that depends on the state too. And to be left negligent because you left your keys in the car is absurd in such a scenario. Gotta love the law and greedy people.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Lazlow

So, I buy my not technically inclined parents an Apple iMac and Macbook, set up internet service, and secure the Airport at the highest level. Automatic updating and renewal of antivirus internet protection software is created.

Along comes an evil genius using an 8 cpu server. Each cpu is an 8 core xeon chip. He has his hacker software skills, funding from the internet crime organizations, and enough antennas and radio gear to make the NSA nervous.

If he manages to download all the movies and TV shows possible after hacking into my parents router, say 3TBs of data, my parents should be held responsible according to some posters here.

Now lets say I buy my parents a Mercedes Benz 600SEL. Its got a great lock system. They faithfully lock the car each time they leave it. They also get it serviced regularly at an official MB dealer. Evil genius with mobile version of WiFi cracking set up, modified for remote door lock system cracking, comes along. He is branching out.

If he manages to unlock the car, start it, drive off and crashes into another vehicle, it is my parents fault according to some here.

So, we should all have Presidential level Secret Service type protection for our communications and transportation, because anything less is negligence on our part.

The rule of law has always been that if you install and use a functioning lock on a private property building and someone defeats that lock to get in, they are at fault for the outcomes created by what they do with the goods they steal. The law does not say you must install a bank vault doors and locking mechanisms in your house. It says you must have put a locking securing mechanism in place and used it. Any reasonable locking mechanism used properly. So the least expensive keyed outside door lock affords me the same LEGAL rights as the most expensive electronic bank vault type door.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by davidhoffman:

The law does not say you must install a bank vault doors and locking mechanisms in your house.

Conversely, does a tiny lock that comes with luggage suffice?

I read the Videotron forum thread and there's more to this story which has changed my opinion.

The user knew for months something was wrong. It sounded like she had one tier with a max $50 overage, paying it every month without investigating what was wrong. Then switched to a higher tier without any limit. That's where she got reamed.

So, 1) we don't know if her password was her phone number or SSID (which would be like a tiny luggage lock). And, 2) she was told for 4-5 months that her lock was broken, and she did nothing about it.

Definitely, ISPs should have a max overage limit. Default to $0 unless the user explicitly agrees to pay $n per month overage.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to dsldude08

said by dsldude08:

And to be left negligent because you left your keys in the car is absurd in such a scenario. Gotta love the law and greedy people.

Are you serious? You believe leaving keys in the ignition of an unattended car, and the engine running isn't negligent?

That adds to the insurance premiums of all of us. And, the resulting high-speed pursuits endanger everyone.

I doubt very few people would agree with your position.

jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

I don't know, this sounds a lot like blaming one of the victims. Someone committed a crime and stole their property. I reject being held responsible for someone elses crime because I was victim.

"She was asking for it" doesn't apply any more to a car or router than it does to rape.
--
Opera 10(Build 1750); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Internet Security 3.10;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2009-06-06,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3