Send In The Cops To Secure Open WiFi?
from the no,-seriously? dept
There have been some absolutely bizarre articles from people misunderstanding open WiFi networks, but this one, clearly, leads the pack. Geek News Central points us to an amazing (anonymous) story at ZDNet UK suggesting that police cars be setup to war drive. Give 'em a laptop and NetStumbler, and if the car notes an open WiFi network, the police are then supposed to find the owner and warn them to secure the access point. If they don't within seven days, the cops will call the RIAA and the BSA to audit the network to see if any illegal file sharing is going on. As Geek News Central says: "It has to be a joke because it is beyond me how that article made it through the editorial chop chain." Having an open WiFi network is not a crime. There are security risks involved, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to leave an access point open. Getting police involved is pointless and then having them "alert" private industry groups is simply ridiculous. At best, hopefully this is a (very) weak attempt at a "modest proposal" style satire.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Satire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and you thought LE was about Law
I mean, look at all the ads for window tint measurment device, exhause decibel meters, radar guns and pretty every conceiveable tool that could measure something that might not meet a local ordance, which could result in a hefty fine.
This is just an extremely logical extention to an already thriving industry. My personal legal take on WiFi is that unsecured is that a lawyer could possibly construe it as "an attractive nusance". All it takes is someone getting hurt across your access point and you could find yourself in civil court... I'm still waiting for the RIAA to pick up on that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfectly Legal
Consider the following paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=594101
From the paper:
[...]
Rules that balance privacy and public safety when applied to physical crime investigations often lead to astonishing results when applied to the facts of computer crime investigations. They permit extraordinarily invasive government powers to go unregulated
[...]
In light of these realities, applying traditional Fourth and Fifth Amendment rules to the new network crimes leaves the first stage of network crimes investigations almost entirely unregulated.
[...]
Anything the officer sees in "plain view", anything he smells in "plain smell" and anything he overhears is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.
Welcome to your brave new world, American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfectly Legal
Why? People have an expectation of privacy in their home, even if they are doing something illegal.
I don't see how someone could possibly suggest that using a WiFi laptop with snooping software is less intrusive than an IR camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfectly Legal
Uh... yeah. Well IR radiation used to grow pot plants doesn't, say, DoS the local police department's web site. The point of the paper, which you would know if you had even bothered to read it, is that ISPs can be compelled to reveal a customer's street address (assuming that the customer's access point is unsecured and someone initiated unauthorized traffic across it). Then, from there the police have probable cause without even having to bother a judge for a warrant... from there the "expectation of privacy" evaporates.
...and that's what you get for assuming one way technology (light emission) is the same thing as send/receive RF technology (WiFi).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]