Sunday, September 4, 2011
Are you liable for the illegal use of your wireless network?
It's an interesting question that's being played out in the courts right now. I was alerted to it by this post on Legal Satyricon. Its author, Marc Randazza, is a lawyer who recently represented a company in a lawsuit against a private individual over alleged copyright infringement.
In the light of that case, Torrentfreak published two articles, one (by Mr. Randazza) asserting that owners of unsecured wireless networks are, indeed, liable for any illegal use of their network by others, and another by Nicholas Ranallo denying that position. I urge you to read both articles, as they go into the authors' respective positions in great detail, and summarize the present legal position.
I know several people who actively refuse to secure their home wi-fi networks by using a password or encryption, on the grounds that this is somehow 'opposed to liberty'. (I think the fact that at least some of them unashamedly make use of any unsecured wireless network they come across during their travels may have something to do with this.) Nevertheless, it appears the courts are increasingly taking the position that if you facilitate wrongdoing by failing to take the most rudimentary and basic precautions to secure your network, you share responsibility (and financial liability) for that wrongdoing. If that becomes established legal precedent, it might become very expensive to fail to take appropriate precautions.
Food for thought . . .
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Heh. A post on the Doofus and stupidity, with which I agree, followed by a post including "...people who actively refuse to secure their home wi-fi networks..." More of same.
I don't quite understand. So, if you don't bother to lock your garage, if someone comes in a borrows your hammer, you should be liable for any damage they do with it? If you don't latch the door of your toolshed, someone takes your axe, and kills someone, you should be liable?
A router isn't a gun. It's not dangerous. It's just a tool. If the fault does not lie with the person who is doing something illegal, who is actually committing the crime ... seems more to be a failure of the legal system.
My understanding in the state where I used to reside was that a private wifi router, unlocked, could be considered an attractive nuisance if it is used by someone to: steal music, hack someone else's accounts or commit another cyber crime.
LittleRed1
I have to agree with Griffin3. A person who leaves their garage door open is inviting the same sort of charges, if we go down this road.
This is no different than the laws that punish the victim of car theft for leaving their car running to warm the engine on a cold morning. They didn't cause the car thief to steal the car, but they did make it easier, supposedly. It's actually a fineable offense here in CO.
As a matter of fact, this is the exact reasoning of one anti-gun blogger as to why guns should be more heavily restricted. He argues that because some gun owners don't take enough precautions against criminals stealing their guns, that all gun owners are responsible and all should be punished in advance. It's the slippery slope. At what point can we say that we have done enough to prevent crime, when all along the criminal is the root cause of crime?
This kind of mentality punishes the victim for being lazy or stupid. The victim will be punished plenty for being lazy or stupid in other areas of their life, there's no need to pile on.
Just another example of "since we can't punish the one we want to, punish the one we can catch". Since we can't be certain to catch the one who violated the law, we'll punish the one we can lay hands on. This will make our contributors (Hollywood, RIAA, etc) happy.
Mine has ALWAYS been secured... WPA2 even :-)
I like the gun analogy. It usually makes sense to keep most of your weapons locked up, but there are plenty of valid reasons to keep them readily available, even at the occasional risk of losing them.
Here's the thing; my first gen modem/router had a switch that let me turn off the wireless function. The new one doesn't. Wonder why that is?
Mines WPA2 secured.
Anything less is asking for trouble..
Anon 8:21, because they usually can be turned off internally, as a setting. Break out the user's manual--it's not considered "cheating" to read it.
Users manual?
What is this mysterious thing of which you speak?
Oh yeah - that's the pdf thingie you can download from the net. (...because it certainly didn't come in the box.)
Now, what did I change that router admin password to? (Something about a dog and some other characters I think.) Oh - here it is taped to the inside of the desk drawer... ;>
Depends upon the brand... mine came with a disc, an eight page book, an "easy set-up" card, and a webpage to look up the pdf, which had all the same info as the cd.
Have to agree on the password though...
Post a Comment