US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

reply to MidniteRider

Re: Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

reply to JohnInSJ

reply to rody_44
You do realize thats an Australian article right?

Edit It didnt link right. Was supposed to link to the guy claiming its illegal to leave your doors unlocked....
/facepalm

reply to MidniteRider
They have changed the rules in recent years.

Running an open network is now considered as aiding and abetting and facilitating. It's complete BS, but it's a fact.

You have no choice but to secure the network and claim unauthorized usage as your only defense.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to dslcreature

reply to Bootes

reply to 8744675

Re: Second Bogus Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement

reply to scooby

reply to MidniteRider
Instead of listening to the online lawyers you would be more wise to contact a real lawyer. No one here can answer with any certainty if you could/would be held liable for your unsecured access point. Anyone here thinking they know for sure is simply blowing smoke.

reply to KrK

Hmm. I guess it's still ambiguous in the USA. There have been cases of charges filed or lawsuits filed but sucessfully defended, it seems.

UK and Australia are going the "Your duty to secure, you are responsible" route while other EU countries like Finland have ruled you are NOT liable for criminal activity via Wi-Fi.

I guess all that really matters is here in the USA, where it seems to be a distinct maybe. Someone could try and press charges or you could be sued and have to defend yourself in court, but I'm not finding any cases yet of someone being successfully prosecuted or being held liable.... I remember reading about the "SAFETY" Act which proposed that all operators of a publicly available WiFi (Even residential) would be required to keep logs of all activity for 2 years or else fact sanction/liability, but I don't know if it ever passed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to CXM_Splicer
»www.zdnet.com/open-wi-fi-outlawe···0057470/

Since when do laws enacted by the UK Parliament affect U.S. citizens? Not since, at least, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, if not July 4, 1776. But likely even earlier.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply to MidniteRider
I think it is unlikely given the history of court cases that you're ultimately going to be held criminally responsible or found liable for damages for having an open network that other people abuse, but that's not the point. The point is that you are risking having to defend yourself against a-holes (RIAA/MPAA) who think it's perfectly okay to force you to run up legal bills well into the five if not six figures fighting their bogus claims. What do they care? They would love the publicity about unsecured networks. They'd release the story to the media even if your attorney didn't. They have done this kind of thing before, suing grandmothers whose visiting grandkids downloaded stuff, and they will do it in several cases like yours in the years to come just for that free publicity to force other people to change their ways. If you're counting on our system of jurisprudence to have your back and save you the expense and hassle in this kind of case, that's potentially a serious mistake. You'll ultimately win the battle but lose the war financially. And yes, the potential hassle of your door being kicked down and all your computer and cellphone gear seized for two years from investigators with a warrant for child pornography is also real. You have to take reasonable measures to secure your wireless network. It may not stop a determined attack, but it will stop a casual one, and that's what you need to do.

reply to RokHed
Thank you for the link and I find it extremely unfortunate that this actually passed in the UK; in many ways I thought their population was a little more 'freedom savvy' than ours here in the US.

As NormanS says this has no bearing on US law. I can't really fault you for that though since neither KrK nor I were country-specific in our exchange... (however I did mention US law earlier in the thread)

The last time I researched it (about 3 years ago) the only thing (here in the US) restricting the use of the 'ISP safe-haven' against copyright infringement was the agreement to a TOS by your 'users'. Many libraries/hotels/ISPs/etc. offer open networks after agreement to TOS through a captive portal and don't have a problem. There is no reason why an individual can't do the same (except TOS violation with their ISP, but that could be worked out). There is a legitimate desire for open networks for transient use by smart phones/pads/laptops for email/searches/low bandwidth use that most people would willingly share their connections for... especially considering the increasing cost/bandwidth ratio that 3G/4G users are being subjected to (of course, wireless carriers would be against open networks). The belief that personal networks must be secured to prevent terrorist threats, kiddy porn & copyright violations is nothing but a furtherance of the police-state mentality that we should be rejecting rather than embracing. The only reason people seek out open networks for illicit activity (and I firmly believe that with open networks available, illicit activity on your network would be non-existent) is because of the current 'acceptance' of vicarious liability for your (whoever pays for it) network. Sorry for the vulgarity but that is complete and utter bullshit. Despite what some might claim... it is not the same thing as handing out loaded guns to a kindergarten class.
--
"I've been Romney-boated.... Somebody who will lie to you to get to be president, will lie to you when they are president." Newt Gingrich

reply to MidniteRider
If you still want to run an open hotpot, you can protect yourself by plugging it into a box that is running as a Tor node.

The added latency and reduction in speed might discourage some of your users from attempting large data transfers.

reply to MidniteRider
So run the second network with a simple, not-so-cryptic password.

The guest network at my house (for babysitters, house guests, etc) has the password written on a piece of paper on the refrigerator.

In case anyone is coming over, the password is "cubssuck".
--
My rants get raves.

reply to MidniteRider
", or whether a neighbor has been piggy backing on my open network ",this right here says it all to me lol not only is it your fault it's open you should really try a better cover up.Oh I thought this was entertaining as well lol"I can host an open network in the spirit of Freedom and Openness and Community without assuming responsibility for every chump who sneaks on, right?"