Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Wireless, Security, and Liability

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

VovkaBobSS — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:01:25 -0000

Mej

We are happy girls!

Ce mai faceti?
Canopy Tarp Bad Credit Mortgage Canada Belly Button Community Type Agent Estate Florida Real Banker Maryland Mortgage
Bad Credit Louisiana Mortgage
Jeep Sale Carpentry And Building Construction
Pleasanton California Real Estate Agent
Vastomazonok

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Deron s — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:34:54 -0000

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.

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

skeptical — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:31:52 -0000

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?

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Tim — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:47 -0000

Skeptical: of course not.

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

skeptical — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:38:01 -0000

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?

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Ed Felten — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:39:17 -0000

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."

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

MikeT — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:50:49 -0000

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.

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Aaron Brazell — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:27:15 -0000

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

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Jon Gales — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:16:12 -0000

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.

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

Tor — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:58:04 -0000

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.

Re: Wireless, Security, and Liability

MikeT — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:06:48 -0000

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.