dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
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.

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
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, 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

axus

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

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
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
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

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...

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

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.

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


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to meeeeeeeeee
said by meeeeeeeeee:

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...

No, I was referring to the copyright and infringement laws.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply 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.


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
reply to Rob
said by Rob 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.



Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
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.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
said by Rob:

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.


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Statue and paragraph of the copyright and infringement laws?


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
said by Rob:

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.


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Rob:

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?
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
said by Rob:

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Rob:

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.
Expand your moderator at work


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

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 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.


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by meeeeeeeeee:

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 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.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House
reply to prairiesky
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).
--
Campaign contributions influence laws through a process called bribery.


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 edit
reply to Rob
said by Rob:

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.


TomS_
Git-r-done
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Noah Vail
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.
Expand your moderator at work


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 edit

1 recommendation

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.


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2

1 edit
Really? I've already explained this. I think you need to revisit the posts above.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to Anon
said by Rob:

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.

JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
reply 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.

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply 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.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to Rob
said by Rob:

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.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Expand your moderator at work