DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

The Technology Liberation Front

The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Jump to original thread »
Author

Wireless, Security, and Liability

Started by TLF · 10 months ago

12 comments

  • MikeT

    3 years ago

    Tim,


    Since the average router doesn't keep any logs, you're going to be hard-pressed to prove that it wasn't you. I have to disagree with you on this one. It's like leaving your house open so that a stranger can come in and sleep on your living room sofa. They might be honest, but they very well might rob you blind. The fact is, the average person cannot prove that it wasn't them, and the RIAA has been known to go after people who claimed ignorance.

  • Tor

    3 years ago

    There's a simple technical solution to the liability problem: route all traffic from your neighbors through TOR (http://tor.eff.org/). Liability approaches 0.
  • Jon Gales

    3 years ago

    MikeT, the way the US legal system works the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's up to me to prove that it was you. If anyone within a 250ft radius of an area could have done something and you have no more information, you simply can't go after whoever owns the property at the center of the circle.
  • Aaron Brazell

    3 years ago

    ...And if the FCC thinks that you're an ISP, you better cough up the $230 application fee.
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/serv...
  • MikeT

    3 years ago

    Jon,


    I know all about innocent until proven guilty, but the activity from your router is probably going to look like you did it, until you can bring in enough evidence to prove that it didn't have to be you who did the dirty deed. It's about saving a lot of stress.

  • Ed Felten

    3 years ago

    In a civil suit, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. If it is known for certain that some bad act was committed via your WiFi, a plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that you were the person who did it. They can brush off your argument that it might have been an outsider by saying, "Maybe, but probably not."
  • skeptical

    3 years ago

    Tim, in your op-ed piece you say the problem can be solved easily by WiFi network owners simply restricting access by strangers with a password. Should people be allowed to hack through those passwords or not?
  • Tim

    3 years ago

    Skeptical: of course not.
  • skeptical

    3 years ago

    OK, but as practical matter, it is possible for people to hack through password security like those protecting WiFi networks, right? How should we keep them from doing it?
  • Deron s

    3 years ago

    If people looked ahead when building or renovating their facilities, homes etc they could cost effectively secure signals from leaving or entering the structure. So for future reference the legal issue would no longer exist. Open networks, encryption simply create opportunity good and bad.
  • VovkaBobSS

    2 years ago

  • tramadol

    2 years ago

    81e31de21f46 Very good tramadol tramadol

Add New Comment

Comments are closed for this post.
Returning? Login