Legal Ramifications of Open Wireless Networks

Quite a few different places cities/coffee shops/wealthier neighborhoods have open wireless networks. From my understanding the RIAA and MPAA figure out who is stealing what by demanding that ISP's turn over the name of the users of an IP address at a specific time. If someone uses a open wireless network there is no way to track down that person down.Bacically my question is does the person who sets up a open wireless network take the fall for whatever activity goes on on that network?

Reply to
kevinmader
Loading thread data ...

Depends on their legal council! There's no law that I know of that states that you cannot run an open network thus the legal council should introduce the "is it at all possible" phrase to which the answer is "yes it is" and therefore there's reasonable doubt.

Criminal law generally runs with the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

That's right. It also depends on the level of activity. Now, if you have someone downloading movies all day long, everyday, then I think the open network is part of the problem yes.

Reply to
JB

That's true for ISP's that keep log files. Most ISP's keep these logs for only as long as they need to troubleshoot customer problems and then vaporize them without backups. 3-4 days is typical. The log files are typically huge, which increases the incentive to vaporize them.

Search Google for "log file retention RIAA". Where the problems started was when Comcast was saving their log files and the lawyers managed to get them to release the info. Since then, Comcast has been sued by its customers and revised its policies and proceedures:

formatting link
Incidentally, most wireless hot spots do not record logs. I have traffic and usage logs on some of the local systems, but nothing identifiable to the users.

Sure there is. I can use a direction finder to locate the open access point, obtain a search warrant, and ruin their day. Finding the users of the open access point is more difficult, but not impossible.

I don't know. My guess is probably not. The rule for common carriers and ISP's is that if the intermediate systems do not touch the content, they are not responsible for the use or abuse of the content. Were it otherwise, the RIAA would also be able to sue the DSL provider, the backhaul provider, the phone company, the fiber bandwidth aggregator, and anyone else who's system carried the illegal download.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

customers data and yes they should have been held accountable.

They'll just pass the blame to their IT people, who will pass the blame to their service company, who will pass the blame to the distributor, who will pass the blame to the manufacturer, who will claim that all such products are shipped insecure by default and it constitutes a defacto industry standard.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

This reminds me of the Lowes hardware store (down in florida i think) that had an open wireless network in which they had financial information going over (credit/debit card transactions from the cash registers)

the guys out in the parking lot sniffing this info and using the store's wireless were brought up and convicted on charges.

i'd like to see the store management brought up on charges of negligence.. its an open network, its YOUR fault its open.

Reply to
Jorge Padrone

It's not entirely the same though - though I bet a lawyer could make a case :-)

In the Lowes case, the management has a fiduciary obligation to keep that information private, and I'd agree they should have been charged. I'd be _very_ surprised if someone didn't sue them, and win, though.

In the case of somebody making (either explicitly or accidentally) his wireless network available to others he may have absolutely no obligation to prevent it (the ISP's terms of use _may_ specify that his connection may not be shared - but I'm not sure the customer could be threatened with anything more than termination of service).

Reply to
Derek Broughton

Find me a law that says the level of activity or running an open network is an issue.

If the open AP is exploited then it's possible or even probable that the owner will be interviewed but as I said before, depending on their level of competency and other retrieved evidence, they may or may not be prosecuted which even then, may not be successful.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

And they'd be right - but that still doesn't let them off the hook. Probably when they install a new cash register it doesn't need a password either - but they quickly change that.

Reply to
Derek Broughton

The difference there is that they have a duty of care to protect their customers data and yes they should have been held accountable.

Reply to
David Taylor

The best response would be for MasterCard, Visa, etc to yank the right to accept credit cards for any store that doesn't provide adequate security for cardholders' information.

Reply to
Neill Massello

Right. These are the same companies that consider logins using one's Social Security number and a 4 digit PIN number to be proper security.

I previously posted a rant on the topic of wireless vendor negligence and shipping routers that are insecure by default:

formatting link
my never humble opinion, methinks the wireless router vendors are just asking for problems.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Since RIAA and MPAA are dealing with copyright issues and these are not typically criminal offenses (not to say they can't be) the owner of the open system might still be held accountable (deep pockets and all) under civil action. Given that the level of proof in a civil action is lower than a criminal action

Not an attorney and don't play one on the internet.

Reply to
NotMe

Proof still doesn't mean that reasonable doubt doesn't come into it.

Likewise.

Reply to
David Taylor

"David Taylor"

| > typically criminal offenses (not to say they can't be) the owner of the open | > system might still be held accountable (deep pockets and all) under civil | > action. Given that the level of proof in a civil action is lower than a | > criminal action | | Proof still doesn't mean that reasonable doubt doesn't come into it.

Interesting thing copyright. Once filed the court PRESUMES ownership and any use without permission is abuse and actionable. There are no provisions for reasonable doubt. Kinda like pregnancy its a step function: one is or one is not.

| > Not an attorney and don't play one on the internet.

Reply to
NotMe

But if it were someone hijacking the connection, there'd be no use and no ownership by the connection owner. :) You just can't go pointing the finger without any evidence whatsoever other than an IP address.

Anyway, this is yet another one to go through the courts, until such time it's pointless debating the outcome.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

"David Taylor"

| > Interesting thing copyright. Once filed the court PRESUMES ownership and | > any use without permission is abuse and actionable. There are no provisions | | But if it were someone hijacking the connection, there'd be no use and | no ownership by the connection owner. :) You just can't go pointing the | finger without any evidence whatsoever other than an IP address. | | Anyway, this is yet another one to go through the courts, until such | time it's pointless debating the outcome.

Copy right, especially under the DMCA, is a bit different as the RIAA has shown. If you permit/enable a violation you're as guilty as if you did it yourself.

Reply to
NotMe

Then I'd expect an instant law making open AP's illegal, going to make it pretty hard for hotspots and in fact ISP's to have a legal business for that matter.

I'll get the popcorn...

Reply to
David Taylor

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.