Are You Liable If Someone Does Something Illegal On Your WiFi?
from the you-shouldn't-be... dept
For years, whenever the press has written one of their fear-mongering stories about open WiFi, they almost always include some tidbit about how if someone uses your network to do something illegal, you can be arrested for it. It's one of the popular open WiFi horror stories -- but is it true? Well, of course, you can be arrested, but it's unlikely that there would be any legal grounds for the arrest. The latest debate on this issue comes from a tech writer at the Houston Chronicle who is taking Tim Lee to task for an op-ed piece Tim wrote in the New York Times about open WiFi. The Chronicle writer says Tim is missing the real security issue, about how the RIAA can go after you if someone downloads music on your open WiFi. While it is true that they can go after you, there are valid legal defenses for this -- as has been discussed for years. If you are legally sharing your WiFi, then you are a service provider, and under current laws you are not liable for what others do with the service. That's what it says in the Communications Decency Act, and it clearly applies here. In fact, we've even heard stories of people purposely leaving their WiFi open for this very reason -- as it gives them a legal defense should the industry ever come after them. Of course, it's worth noting two things. First, the entertainment industry likes to pretend this defense doesn't exist, even though it's pretty clear in the law -- and they could convince some judges to ignore it. Second, none of this takes into account whether or not your service provider allows you to share your connection via WiFi -- as most do not. However, that doesn't take away from the defense that you aren't responsible for what others do with your connection. You may be investigated for it -- but the use of your network does not automatically make you guilty, and there's a very reasonable defense against it.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Occupiers liability is vicarious and strict. You are responsible for anything that happens on your property (non criminal). However this liability only extends to people you have invited onto your property or people that are there expressly with your permission.
Someone using your open wifi connection would not be able to transfer liability for their actions onto the host, as they technically fall under the term 'tresspasser'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert on 3/21/06 on property law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil, not criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a way around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not so sure..
I can claim that since I have an open, unsecured wireless network that it must have been someone else, but shouldn't I have to prove that it wasn't me, or that it wasn't my specific computer(s)? Is there some way to prove that none of my computers were involved in that activity at that time, even though it was behind my router?
It may be fear mongering to tell people that there is a danger in leaving their wireless networks open, but it's probably a good fear to have for the average person. If you aren't able to document who was sharing your network at any given time, it seems to me that you can (and maybe should) have to answer for whatever occurs on that network.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
That's just idiotic. When did the innocent have to start proving their innocence? How are you supposed to, anyways? Showing that the MAC address didn't belong to you? MACs can be faked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
Well, imagine that there's a murder and a gun that you own is the murder weapon and found at the scene of the crime with some of your prints on it.
At that point you'll need to prove it wasn't you and that someone else must have taken your gun and did it. That's the reason why you have a defense lawyer and why there is a jury. They take the evidence and decide whether or not to believe certain pieces of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
In civil court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
Consider a organization bringing evidence to legal authorities that some illegal activitity has taken place from your connection to the internet. Havent they already established some crime (Civil or Criminal) has taken place and the burden of proof is now on your to prove that it was not in fact you at the computer, or someone was using your wifi connection to connect to the network in order to do what ever it is they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
Tell the people in Guantanamo bay that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
At the moment, the US can come into nearly any country, and ship you off to Guantanimo. And once you're there, tough luck. Maybe you'll get after out after 2 years, maybe not.
And I'm sure it will be a great comfort knowing that you are not in the USA, but in Guantanimo Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
If you have any disability or medical issue, there is supposed to be a exam to see if the defendant understand or can aid in his own defense. But in southern states, this doesn't happen much. People in the south go to jail all the time for things they do not do.
Lesson learned the hard way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
They have to get a judge to say, there are no logs of anyone else doing it, it came from their internal equipment, and it was on their internet connection, they are the most likely party to have committed the offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
That's completely rediculous. It can take as little as 2 minutes to crack a secured wireless connection with the right software and a wireless NIC that can packet sniff. Would you like to the the one standing behind the "Defendant" sign in criminal litigation for child pornography because someone with malicious intent decided to upload a half dozen nasty pictures to a known, monitored bulletin board using your wireless connection? Would you like to try and prove that you don't own the NIC through its MAC address, that you've never owned it?
The idea is completely absurd and boggles the mind.
Personally, I'm just happy to be sitting up here in the great white north, downing the contents of BitTorrent through a 7mb/s straw and not having to worry one bit about the legality of my actions... Ohhh Canada Baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
Personally, I'm just happy to be sitting up here in the great white north, downing the contents of BitTorrent through a 7mb/s straw and not having to worry one bit about the legality of my actions... Ohhh Canada Baby.
If you are as good at "cracking" in 2 minutes secured wireless connection as you are understanding how BitTorrent works, then good luck to you :)
It is ILLEGAL in Canada to share (read: upload) content. There is no way you can NOT share while downloading with BT.
And, uh, which provider are you using that gives you 7"mb/s"? Link, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
They were ready to cancel my high-speed account, which I need due to my business. I had to show Telus that the download was not done by one of my systems before they backed off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
For a Chinese national, you sure have an odd name.
To answer your question on why you shouldn't have the burden of proof, that depends on what laws you live under. On this side of the sea, we are presumed innocent and the plaintif has the burden of proof to show you as guilty.
Following your logic, you'd be guilty of manslaughter should your car be stolen and it is driven over a crowd of people.
Rolling over and complying with totalitarin entities disrespects my country's founders, and implies people are all thieves. Ergo those that claim damages, are also thieves.... By standing up for your rights and having some self esteem you will break this circular run of "everyone is guilty, so hurt everyone you can before they hurt you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precedent
Licensed gun dealers and gun owners have been dragged through the courts because someone bought or stole a gun and later used it in a crime. It is complete bull, but it has already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
My crazy idea of what a good legal system looks like: You shouldn't go to jail for something you did not do. Especially if you had no knowledge of the illegal activity happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
Good luck proving a negative.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty by default, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty by default, eh?
You are innocent until enough evidence points to you being guilty.
I did not do it is not a defense against a crime happened at an IP address, registered to you. Proving you were not home and running a script to do it, or that you were not logged in remotely is proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
An open wifi network introduces a reasonable doubt that another person could have performed an illegal action traced back to your account.
In any criminal case involving computers the police will sieze your pc and go throught it with a fine toothcomb to esablish whether you are guilty - that is the evidence that will convict, not the fact that something was done on your isp account.
Even if you don't have an open wifi connection if your computer is available to other family members or guests it has to be proven that it was *you* and not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BURDEN OF PROOF
"It seems to me that if something illegal is done over my network (i.e. it's traced back to the IP address that I had at the time of the illegal activity), then it's my responsibility prove that I did not perform the illegal activity. Never mind the RIAA, if downloading or, heaven forbid, uploading of child porn was done over my network, why shouldn't I be considered the primary suspect? Why shouldn't I have the burden of proof? "
because that's not how the law works. I hope the law NEVER works that way... The burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution, not the defendant - and for good reason. If the burden of proof of innocence rests on the defendant, then we are all guilty until proven innocent. With "unlimited" resources of investigation the prosecution has the power and responsibility to prove guilt. Anything else leaves us in a state where you can be tossed in jail and then asked to "prove your innocence". All the while your home and all possible evidence to free you has been "inventoried" and what you would have used for defense "lost" or "damaged". In a state where you are assumed guilty you then have no defense...
I'm not a big tin foil hat wearer and this isn't a slippery slope argument - its rational and has been demonstrated time and again in states where guilt is assumed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BURDEN OF PROOF
And that dog handler guy deserves to do his time in an Iraqi prison, in general population. (Random thought)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
RIAA: "Your IP downloaded illegal music."
YOU : "True, but my wireless router is unsecured." (Weak)
YOU : "Oh, by the way, here are the logs showing several MAC addresses that do not belong to me that were connected to my access point during the time in question." (Strong)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
On Linux/Mac/BSD or similar you can change your address with something like the following:
ifconfig eth0 down hw ether [mac address]
If you want a valid mac address you can even look it up.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers
Another thing that is recorded in logs, but not unique is your hostname
hostname xyz will change that as well on Linux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
That's a really crappy assertion and I sincerely hope you never work in the legal field. Assuming you live in the U.S., no, you do NOT have to prove that you didn't do some illegal act. Let's start with a hypothetical situation.
Imagine, if you will, that a friend or family member who knows absolutely squat about computers or network security buys a wireless router and sets it up in their home. Of course, it's left at the factory defaults which are, by and large, highly insecure. It can't be left to them to secure their access point and clients since they don't even know what an SSID is.
Now, imagine further, that someone parks their car across the street, connects to the friend or family member's network, and starts uploading all kinds of child porn to the web and hacks into several government networks. A week later, the cops come knocking on the door. The friend or family member explains that they have a wireless network and admitted that they had no clue that it was insecure. Further, they posit that they have never possessed any child porn nor the knowledge to hack into their VCR's blinking clock, let alone a government computer network.
But of course any criminal can (and almost all do) deny any wrong-doing. But how can they prove that they didn't commit a crime? Even if the police confiscate all of the computers and search the entire house, they can always assert that the friend or family member erased the incriminating evidence on the hard drives and ask them to prove that they didn't. Even if the friend or family member can prove that they were somewhere else when the crime occurred, the prosecuter might ask them to prove that they didn't remotely access their home computer to commit the crime.
See where this is going? It's virtually impossible to conclusively prove that you DIDN'T do something. That's why, in our system of law, the burden of proof is on the the party making the accusation, not the accusee. If they can't demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did something illegal, the case is over and you walk free. This ideal is often captured in the phrase, "innocent before proven guilty."
It would signify a severe breakdown in the integrity of our entire legal system (cynical comments on its current state aside) if a person was hauled into court and sent to jail because they couldn't prove that they never did anything illegal with their shared internet connection.
it seems to me that you can (and maybe should) have to answer for whatever occurs on that network.
Now, this is a completely different question. According to this techdirt article, the author states that according to current law, one cannot be held liable if someone else uses their network for illegal purposes. I concur with this and think it should stay this way because people in our nation are already too obsessed with pointing blame at everyone else. (Example: in my city, you can be sued sucessfully if some clumsy idiot slips and falls on a patch of ice on your property.)
But for the time being at least, running an open wireless network doesn't potentially subject you to criminal liability or a conviction even when you do nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
You do not need a JD to know this, it is 9th grade civics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
This is why our courts are built on innocent until proven guilty. If someone uses your IP address to do something illegal, it's not your job to prove it wasn't you. It's the prosecutors job to prove that it was you and not someone else. Showing an IP trace is the same as saying you were in the neighborhood, even on a hard wired network. It doesn't prove guilt, it simply makes you a suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
Because, at least in the United States, we've embraced a legal system that puts the burdern of proof on the accusing party. They must prove you guilty, not the converse.
In addition, the argument is just as the author states. If you can be seen as the suspect, why not the phone company that transferred teh data? Why not the film company that captured the kiddie porn? Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
In Criminal Courts *only*.
The RIAA sues through the Civil courts, though, where the burden of proof is *far* less strict. All the RIAA has to do is prove "reasonable likelyhood."
I don't fault your enthusiasm, just it's application here. It is, unfortunately, a 8very* common misconceptions, as you can see above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
You can't prove a negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
Sure it was downloaded by your IP, but that does not prove that you did it. A hacker could have hacked into your computer and then made it download a movie.
As for the "You should have known better" idea, what if you believe in open wireless networks because they give free internet to people when they need it. If the RIAA and MPAA are going to sue people and say they should have known to encrypt their network then why do all routers default to being open?
I dont think it is a valid argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
It comes back to society catering to the unwashed masses. By dumbing everything down, and/or fitting everything into the "must be working 100% right out of the box" categories. E.g. If it doesn't work out of the box, then it must be broken, and I'll get the equipment from a different vendor. I'm saying this not just as speculation, but as exact examples of behavior I've seen at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
im having flashbacks of middle school. something about habius corpis and innocent untill proven guilty. I wonder if it has to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
So, guilty until proved innocent you mean?
If someone steals my car and knocks someone down, am I liable unless I can prove my car was properly secured?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
You write: "but shouldn't I have to prove that it wasn't me"
The last I knew in this country, the burden of proof was on the prosecution, and he who is being prosecuted is presumed innocent, until proven otherwise.
An open connection is definately 'reasonable doubt'. Your connection could have been accessed by anyone. Enough said. You don't have to prove that it wasn't you. They have to prove nobody accessed your wide open connection, and you and only you were using the connection. A prosecution would almost be impossible unless actual illegal content was found on your computer.
I pray we never live under rule where the accused have an obligation to prove their innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand...
I thought people in the U.S. were presumed innocent until proven guilty? If I have open Wi-Fi and claim that my connection was stolen for illegal activity, shouldn't it be on the prosecutor's back to actively pursue undeniable proof that it was my machine? Why should I have to come up with proof that I didn't do it? How are you supposed to prove something like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agreed
Its not only people with money to hire good lawyers that are found not guilty!
The vast majority of convictions never go to trial, and it's usually because the accused hasn't taken the time to understand the law! Generally police will get information leading to conviction by talking with the accused and making them feel as though giving them information will somehow help them (never).
Public Defenders will suggest taking a plea because they have high case loads and don't want to take a case to trial when the accused messed it up so bad that he has no chance of winning.
If ever people would realize that you simply do not answer any questions ever, when accused of anything, we would have half empty jails and prisons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tighten Security.
If someone can "hack" it and then use it illegaly on it, then you'd have a better chance of staying clear from any lawsuites.
I personally dont like wireless networks, but it is nice being able to sit back with my Sharp Tripad and read my email from the bathroom at work =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction.
Meant "it and then use it illegaly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction. Correction.
"hack it and then use it illegally"?
If you take the time to improve the grammar, you might as well fix the spelling while you're there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robs Reply
It seems to me that if something illegal is done over my network (i.e. it's traced back to the IP address that I had at the time of the illegal activity), then it's my responsibility prove that I did not perform the illegal activity. Never mind the RIAA, if downloading or, heaven forbid, uploading of child porn was done over my network, why shouldn't I be considered the primary suspect? Why shouldn't I have the burden of proof?
I can claim that since I have an open, unsecured wireless network that it must have been someone else, but shouldn't I have to prove that it wasn't me, or that it wasn't my specific computer(s)? Is there some way to prove that none of my computers were involved in that activity at that time, even though it was behind my router?
It may be fear mongering to tell people that there is a danger in leaving their wireless networks open, but it's probably a good fear to have for the average person. If you aren't able to document who was sharing your network at any given time, it seems to me that you can (and maybe should) have to answer for whatever occurs on that network.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't
----------------------------
I see you have a good point, but the fact is that you track thing only so far, router in a LAN tools with a port to the WAN ( internet) if the RIAA trace route you they are going to get your WAN ip address then they will stop look and get your MAC address, then and packet ripper to get the name and info on the hard using that MAC address, once they see the UNIX and I clone on the list they know its a Router and there for knowing thats is most likey a wireless because thats the most sold out there they arent going to bother because its top much hassle. and proving that it
and theres only 2 kinds of people to understand binary, 1 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robs Reply
Umm, guess you fell asleep in CS 100. 10 binary == 2 in decimal therefore, "there are only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary and those who don't" is accurate.
In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty, although being able to prove your innocence doesn't hurt either!
********************************
The Religious Right - America's Taliban
********************************
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robs Reply
Actually there are only 10 kinds of people who understand binary, those that do and those that don't.
If you are gonna steal quotes from Bash.org, at least don't misquote them...
Re: Re: I'm not so sure.. by dudex on Mar 21st, 2006 @ 1:13am
Last time I checked, in the USA you are "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until you prove you are innocent."
Tell the people in Guantanamo bay that!
and then tell the people in Guantanamo Bay that they are not IN THE USA!!!!! and then remind them that charges are being brought up on the people who violated their civil liberties....
why not just buy a cd?
two reasons, a> CD's are WAY overpriced and usually only end up with 1 or two decent songs on them and 2> I vote with my dollars, until the music industry starts producing music WORTH buying, why should I buy it??? Most of my music I get from ITunes where I can download the one song I like off the album and then burn my own CD's of the music that is good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Robs Reply
If you are gonna steal quotes from Bash.org, at least don't misquote them... "
I think you were directing this at me, and I'll have you know that I did not steal that quote from bash.org (though I've recently found the site and I really love reading the quotes.) I saw the "10 kinds of people" thing 3 or 4 years ago in a mailing list I belonged to at the time from topfive.com. I don't know who the guy I stole it from stole it from (unless he actually was the author), but I've used it as my signature line ever since.
Besides, your version doesn't make any sense. 10 kinds of people understand binary, those who do (understand) and those who don't (understand)? How does that even remotely scan?
I can't believe the number of people here who completely miss the whole "innocent until proven guilty" point when it comes to criminal or civil law. You are innocent until "proven" guilty only as long as there is no evidence against you. Once evidence against you is presented, you can sit there and quote "innocent until proven guilty" all you want, but I'm going to start working on proving the evidence isn't sufficient to convict me.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robs Reply
That loud "whooshing" sound you probably heard is this rather old mathematics joke zooming over your head. Judging from your reply, you are not the 1 of the 10 kinds who did understand binary.
We apologize to you for the lack of base subscripts, but that would have really given it away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analogy
I don't buy the open WiFi defense one bit. If you leave a tool open for anyone to use and someone uses it for illegal purposes then you are liable. The clause of service provider will not apply to private WiFi unless you have filed for the permits and/or licensing to provide that service and then pay business taxes for that permitted service. On the other hand, if you take appropriate measures to protect your network and someone still breaks in and commits a crime then you should have logs to prove the attack and a MAC address that has not been on your network before the attack. Sure a MAC can be faked, but the odds of the fake MAC matching one on you network is pretty far out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: analogy
On the other hand, if you take appropriate measures to protect your network and someone still breaks in and commits a crime then you should have logs to prove the attack and a MAC address that has not been on your network before the attack. Sure a MAC can be faked, but the odds of the fake MAC matching one on you network is pretty far out there.
I watched Kevin Mitnick crack 64 bit web in 32 seconds. 128 bit in 3 minutes flat. Tools like netstat, netstumbler, and many others that assist you in cracking wep and seeing the MAC addresses and IP addresses of every device on the network are freely available for download on the web. If I were going to hack into your secure network to do something illegal, you can be certain that the mac address that performed the illegal activity would be EXACTLY the same as one on your network. You would probably end up with a few files that you never had before as well. Maybe even some docs printed on your printer that was on the network...
People who are out there wardriving are not the Average Joe users who know nothing about what they are doing. Most of the "average users" are going to ride the open free networks. The wardrivers are the ones with the brains and the tools to do it right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: analogy
You are entitled to have a box of knives on your own private property. If someone takes one out of the box, (also known as larceny), while they are on your property without permission, you are not liable for what they do with the stolen knife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analogy
Leaving a box of knives on your front porch could be considered a form of negligence on your part.
How about this instead…
I leave a hammer on my porch and my redneck neighbor bludgeons his brother to death with it during a fight about who drank the last Budweiser. How am I legally implicated in any way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
news to me.
-'disgrace'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: news to me.
This is more proof that people should be required to attend classes and get a certification that they aren't so frelling stupid, so they can put a wireless network up. I know it takes an additional 30 seconds or so to implement even the most rudimentary security, but come on folks. Use some common sense! The arguement of "I didn't know." or "I don't know about this internet security stuff. I don't have time to deal with it." is pure BS, and should not be tolerated. But it is. The US courts have no qualms about protecting stupidity and continuing to permit the unwashed masses from flooding on to the Internet; by allowing these frivilous lawsuits to even go forward, let alone permitting the litigious morons to prevail. It's time for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why
why not just buy a cd?
Because they are overpriced, because I only want 1 song out of 15 on it, and most of all because it pays the RIAA to harrass the public and bend laws and politician's ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why
There's your answer, and have fun listening to your new Britney Spears CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is no excuse
Tell the people in Guantanamo bay that!
Last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay was not in the US, the people were taken into custody for probably cause by US military forces while conducting raids, seizures, searches, etc. and they are considered prisoners of war. Also, US law does not directly apply to them, but international law and the Geneva Convention does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is no excuse
Don't get me started on the US gov. compliance with the Geneva convention, but needless to say there are numerous documented cases of violations by the US gov.
Foreign people don't hate US freedoms (not many left if you pay close attention, I actually pity you), they hate the US interfering with ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guantanamo prisoners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll go one further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Running open?
Okay, you have a valid legal defence when the jackboots of the legal system show their ugly face, but more to the point your own illegal downloads are going to be retarded. I don't want the student scummers next door using up my valuble bandwidth.
Besides all that, if they do, and they download kiddie and animal pics, whose computer equipment do you think the constabulary are goin to seige when your IP address is traced?
More hastle than its worth.
Securing your wifi is vital. Anyone who doesn't realise this deserves the discomfort when they are arrested for someone else's crime, and the nightmare of trying to get their property, and possibly their virginity, back afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Running open?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Running open?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability and Innocence
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Scenario
Someone hacks your Wi-fi, by working out your key, spoofing your MAC address on the access control list (all known exploits) and then does something illegal (shares music, hack someone else). Are you liable?
Someone uses a known windows exploit to turn your PC into a zombie, then uses it in a denial of service attack to bring down a server seomwhere. Are you liable?
Both scenarios pretty much have the same theme and are comparable in essence. Therefore they should both have the same rules?
Alternatively your router manufacturer should be liable for provideing hackable security as should your OS supplier. You get sued by someone, you sue them for providing flawed software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets not fool ourselves..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi-fi can't always be secured
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, so short-sighted
Repeat after me: AN IP ADDRESS IS NOT AN IDENTITY!
At best an IP address is a single computer. At worst it is a whole network of computers (which is common these days). There's no way in hell I could ever believe, based on an IP address alone, that a person behind that IP committed any given crime. There's too many other factors and open Wifi is just one of them.
The discussion going on here is so short-sighted. Most people seem to forget:
* A PC behind that address could be hacked/remotely controlled (ever heard of zombies?)
* A single PC can be used by multiple people. You can't sue a whole household.
* An IP address can be faked. Just because some P2P app says that a client is at 123.45.67.89 doesn't mean it really is.
* A person could have had evidence of copyright violation planted on their computer. Given, it isn't likely, but it is still a possibility. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that this isn't the case. If we just go by IP, it would be too easy to blackmail people.
There's more, but I think you see the point.
-Riskable
"I have a license to kill -9"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, so short-sighted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Wi-Fi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No.
Thats like taking a Coffee Shop to court because some customer with a laptop and a hard-on hacked into your porn site. The Coffee Shop has done nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent until Proven Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straighten It Out!!
Criminal Law - says you are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the authorities have grounds (IP address) to believe something illegal is coming from your network, that is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
They seize (not "seige") all your computer equipment, anything that looks like video or audio recording equipment and media, and anything that remotely might be connected to the alleged crime(s). You get it back 2 or 3 years later, after they go over it with a fine-toothed comb, and presuming they find absolutely nothing incriminating. But, that's OK, it's taken you 3 years anyway to recover from being arrested on Channel 5 News as a kiddie porn trader; and you lose your house paying for the lawyer.
Civil Law - not "presumed innocent". You have to show that it's likely that someone else is the culprit, ie. for file trading; if they find stuff on your computers, well, better have the CD's.
guatnamo bay is not US territory, but the prisoners are not "Prisoners of war" or they would have rights. They are "enemy combatants", a name recently made up to excuse exemption from US and international law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communications Decency Act
But while that immunity is fairly robust, protecting the ICS from e.g. libel claims, it offers NO immunity for intellectual property claims (such as copyright claims) or criminal liability. See 47 USC section 230(e)(1)-(2).
47 USC section 230
That's not to say there might not be other defenses, but the CDA point in your post is not quite right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be proactive with your WiFi
Kevin Dill
http://ushightech.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its too important not to
having something procured illegally would defeat the defense of an ope,bn network, and as said, who here does not...well just read above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA doesn't sue through the Criminal Justice system, where one is innocent until proven guilty.
They sue through the civil courts, where, basically, the burden of proof is on the accused.
This is the main reason their tactics are so incredibly successful. They avoid the whole "We have to prove they did it" scenario and just bully the court into finding in their favor.
So all of this innocent until proven guilty simply does NOT apply.
Sorry guys, hate to be the bearer of bad news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi-Fi
Lyrics to a popular song - gets downloaded all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
Proof to a jury has a different meaning than to a mathematician. Some jurors have been known to believe that the defendant is guilty because he is on trial, or that the defendant has been indicted. More famously, proof is a better than 12/13 chance of guilt, as in "better that 12 guilty men go free than one innocent be punished." Those really aren't very good odds for "proving" guilt if you look at it from the point of an innocent trapped in the justice system.
Frankly, our system of justice provides a pretty good punishment process even for those who are found to be completely innocent, or even those who have the charges dismissed at an early stage in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moo, moo.
Pervasive Moo-ness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent Until Decided Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For individuals this may be true . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent until proven Guilty. An IP address is insufficient evidence. 'Nuff Said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free WiFi? Excellent!
Yes, I said it. You are stupid for leaving your wireless network open. Do you leave your home unlocked, windows and doors wide open? What about your vehicle, do you do the same thing; e.g. leave your keys in the vehicle, with doors unlocked and windows down? I thought not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free WiFi? Excellent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to consider
-- Judges who don't have the technical ability to understand how the internet and networks operate;
-- Judges who are paranoid about "hackers" and eager to throw the book at anyone accused of being a "pirate."
I believe in the American idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, but unfortunately it often takes a very good lawyer and a lot of money to get that principle upheld.
(Lastly: I did not want to weigh in on this side topic, but deliberately creating a concentration camp that is technically not on U.S. soil, and using tortuous reasoning to avoid the Geneva Convention and other treaties, is at least immoral and unethical, and at worst a crime. In any case, it at minimum strikes me as un-American to imprison anyone -- even alleged enemies -- without access to a fair hearing and full legal defense. I was brought up on the Constitution and the idea that America likes to set a higher example. Gitmo is an affront to all true patriots who see beyond fear tactics and short-term expediency.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do what large companies do : WPA-Enterprise
Sure..it may not be two pale, over-caffeinated dudes with "RTFM" t-shirts sitting in a black conversion van in your cul-de-sac..it might be the neighbor kid, or it might be someone miles away (yes, your data can be "sniffed" from miles away). They may search your data for something juicy, launch a bunch of SPAM, introduce their new worm, who knows?
As to the specific topic at hand, any Illegal activities will most certainly be linked to your IP address you were assigned at the time. How will you prove it wasn't you?
The only real way to secure a wireless network is to use WPA/WPA2 Enterprise security...not MAC-filtering (a joke), not WEP, (a, perhaps, funnier joke). WPA that comes with many APs is decent, but not perfect.
WPA - Enterprise is backed with a RADIUS server so all activity is logged via multiple passwords, etc. So..if you want to let your neighbor share, fine, but the RADIUS server logs his activity.
Problem is..what home or small business owner wants to build a friggin' RADIUS server or can afford to buy an Enterprise-ready one? Well, now you don't have to.
WiTopia sells a service called SecureMYWiFi and it does just that. Cheaply, simply, and quickly. Downside is I guess if people used it..it'd end spirited debates like this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inocent until proven Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piece is very USA-centric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats Unecessary. As long as your post gets your point accross, then spelling and gramar don't matter. Why is this such an issue for you?
"If you should have known better, then you could be partially guilty."
Sharing an internet connection is not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The safe order of preference is no wifi, open wifi
It seems to me that securing wifi is more risky than leaving it open. If you are worried about defending the use of your internet connection when the router is open just think about how much harder it will be to defend that use if it is secured and someone has hacked your connection. How many judges are going to believe that you didn't do it?
This is the concern with all new technologies - reliance on their accuracy or ability to identify someone or protect your security. If they fail you are likely really screwed. It seems quite clear that some judges will accept the evidence that since you secured your connection you must have been the one using it.
So the only way to be safe is to coat your exterior walls with foil or don't use wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would make networks in general pointless. I'm breaking the law in canada if I host a web page?
File Sharing only? Even so, wheres the fucking logic in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get the legal system straight guys
And if you did something that ends up in a criminal case, keep in mind that prosecutors generally only bring cases when they know they have evidence that is enough to win. That's how they keep those 98% conviction records. Sure, they have to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the strongest defenses will show not just that someone else *could* have done it, but rather that it's likely that someone else *did* do it. If all you say is "someone else could have used my open connection" then the issue will be is there any reason to think that someone else did. If there is no reason to think that, then there's no reasonable doubt. If there is, then you've got something to play with. But if you were smart you'd have shown that to the prosecutor upfront, to try to keep him from bringing charges in the first place.
In general, defendants do have to show that doubts are reasonable if they want to get off, whether by proffering their own evidence, showing that the prosecution's evidence is crap, or both.
Just remember "innocent until proven guilty" is only criminal. With civil cases, it's whoever has the better evidence wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability on Wi-Fi
So, if a neighbor is using his neighbor's wi-fi because he is so close and is using that signal illegally, the legal system should go after the bad guy.
I can see it now, a lawyer is going to sue Starbucks because a customer was using Starbucks' wi-fi to send out a virus, instead of the customer because Starbucks has deep pockets.
Just my 2 cents worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liable, yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy Invasion
I feel my privacy has been invaded and that someone has taken over and networked my computer and e-mail.
What actions can be taken to find this out?
Who would I go to?
YE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is it illegal for an ex-wife to use the computer t
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice lady.
What did you do to her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so lets say i have a open wifi and i use knoppix with no hard drive their will be no trace of a crime or anything else that i do
now this goes 2 ways wep can easily be cracked and a laptop can be configured the same way or a desktop with an inverter in a van
i hate to say it but if a crime is commented somebody must pay so we at least have the appearance of justice justice is a thing of the past
if i'm not mistaking it has been said one our country's founding fathers" that 100 guilty men should walk free before 1 innocent man goes to jail "
on the idea that a guilty man will repeate his crime and get caught but the odds are he will get away with it 1000,00 if he know what he is doing
and now guilty men walk the streets and innocent people go to jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: are you liable
Anyway, I thought i had correctly set up my network again to where you needed a WEP key to access my network and the internet but aparently when i had to unplug the router and plug it back in to bridge the router so it would work properly with the new Embarq modem.... the securiy had been disabled, but i didnt realize this until about 2 months ago. i had clicked on my McAfee (manage my network) and when the network tree popped up on screen it showed not only my desktop, and my laptop computer's.... but it also showed that a DELL, COMPAQ, MacBook, & a GATEWAY were accessing my internet. Thats when i realized my network had not been secured since july..and these 4 people were getting free internet.
So, with the help of Embarq tech support.... i was informed that my modem and router had the same factory set IP address.... so they told me to change router to 192.168.3.1 and I was then able to access my routers control page and restore WEP seurity to my network
but the real fun happend not to long after i was able to get my wep security back up......i got a vist from the police. they had traced child porno downloads to my modems ip and mac address... i informed them that just 2 weeks prior i had discovered that my WEP security was disabled and that 4 unknown comp's were acccessing my wireless siganl. I told them that a DELL, COMPAQ, MacBook, & a GATEWAY was accessing my DSL without my permission..
of course them being police, they did not believe a word I said and they informed me that all 6 of my comp's would be confiscated..... i told them i had only 2 and the other 4 they were looking for would found inside the house's of my neighbors.... not belieing me they ransacked my house looking for the other 4 comp's.. and they took me and my 2 comp's in and interigated me...trying to scare me by saying they had found interesting things on my comp's so that i would confess to the child porno(police are so sneaky).but it didnt work on me and in the end they finally believed me and they where able to get search warrents for the 6 house's around my house..... because i helped them find the real criminals by disabling my WEP security.... and immediatly after doing so... the same 4 comp's popped up on my McAfee (manage my network) network tree, proving it wasnt me.... and after getting warrents they hit the houses and found that 2of the 6 house's had 2 comp each and there was kiddie porn on the 2 of the 4 (both were in same house) said culprit will more than likely serve 60 years without parol....
in conclusion unless you can prove it.... they will hold you responsable (because since My name was on the DSL account they came after my ass first) since then i have changed my WEP security to 64 bit encryption......lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: are you liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taken to Court
I was interested reading this article as I am going to court next month for being accused of unlawfully accessing confidential information from my home wireless internet provider from my former employers internal computer system. Whilst it may seem that its rather suspicious considering i used to work there, i am not guilty and an deeply distressed by the nmatter. I was infact interviewd by the police who didnt prosecute me because they said that it could not be proved who was sitting behind the laptop which was used in my home. I have tried in vain to get my internet provider to write a report in my defense about the other possibilities i.e. my ip address could have been hacked. THey have chosen to sit on the fence about the whole matter despite them writing a report to the courts that my home ip address was responsible. I risk my reputation being tarnished. is there anything you could advise. I am due to attend court in 2 weeks and have no legal representation due to my policy stating it will not act on my behalf because an illegal act has been practised even if I am innocent. help!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TakeResponsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TakeResponsibility
Maybe if everyone turned this dump back into America instead of some welfare scum hole and give the criminals rights and take away rights from the real American, this would not be a problem. As for leaving knives on your yard, if someone comes in your yard and you blow their head off, they won't do it again. But only your murdering scum government can kill and murder who they want. We have not been attacked by Afghanistan, so what gives this government the right to attack them. It losers like you and your welfare thinking that has destroyed this country, now get back to work so Obama can steal all your money and give all his primates free medical care on the white man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
using someone's wifi connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of expression and speech on computer
The judges should throw everything out such as seeing unless someone got murdered or killed behind hacking. A computer Internet is all about sharing and learning. But some hacker's get a little careless. But until a violent crime that cause by a hacking happened Yes the judge should allow prosecutors to prosecute the hacking killer who killed. So be carefull what you put on the wifi. We hope the judge will see freedoms of expressing and speech. Unless the suprem court ban the Internet and change the constitution that violent crimes have taken over and no one and use the Internet by computer no more and the world is in an up roar and international bind is put on all Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of expression and speech on computer
Having the wifi w a code as protection helps. I heard the routers in a home need to be upgraded per home, not through the technology companies to keep the internet secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being virtually abused
I want it stopped, but am not sure how to. Any helpful information would be greatly appreciated.
Also, words are sometimes put in my mom's or my mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In case you need it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So just getting on some else's wifi is Illegal that is very crazy. And when you have random spams pop up on emails is illegal well, we don't do that well some of us don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]