Unguarded Wi-Fi threat
p2pnet.net news:- The Debbie Foster p2p file sharing case in which an Oklahoma mother took on Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big 4 Organized Music cartel, and won, has serious implications for unguarded Wi-Fi set-ups, says Wired News.
Foster has been awarded substantial lawsyer fees and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and to no one’s surprise, the Big 4 enforcer wants the decision to be reconsidered.
“If the ruling stands, the RIAA will have to be much more careful about who it sues going forward, adjusting its scatter-shot approach to filing such lawsuits in order to avoid suing the wrong people,” says Wired. “But if the RIAA’s appeal is granted, open Wi-Fi hotspots could become standing invitations for the organization to sue.”
How so?
The story goes on the RIAA wants a ruling that, “the owner of an ISP account is responsible for all activity on that account, which could have a chilling effect on public wireless access and open hotspots. (The appeal also made the point that Foster should be held liable if she was aware of the infringement occuring via her account; in the case of someone with an open Wi-Fi network, that could constitute something as simple as experiencing traffic slowdowns.)
“If the judge rules that we’re each legally responsible for all of the traffic that comes through our ISP account, open, unprotected Wi-Fi hotspots would become a serious legal liability, the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who depend on their neighbors for Wi-Fi will be out of luck, while altruistic (or ignorant) folks who leave their wireless networks open could find themselves embroiled in an RIAA lawsuits even if they’ve never shared a single song in their lives.”
The RIAA simnilarly tried it on in Virgin vs Marson, says Wired, adding it was forced to discontinue it after the defense proved, “all sorts of people were accessing the Internet through her account.”
Also See:
and won – Victory for RIAA victim , February 7, 2007
Wired News – RIAA Fights Back, Threatens Open Wi-Fi , February 22, 2007
reconsidered – RIAA struggles in Foster case, February 22, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
That’s bad news. I’d say almost all wireless routers ship by default with wireless security disabled by default for convenience. Whether or not the appeal is successful for the RIAA, router companies need to step up to the plate and ship their products with WPA enabled by default. WPA is already supported by all major operating systems and most wireless devices, so the only excuse for not enabling it is that a long password must be typed in to each computer or device wanting access. That excuse may work for public hotspots, but it doesn’t fly for private accounts, where sharing your connection with an outsider is usually a TOS violation, even though an ISP-provided wireless router is almost always provided with security disabled. This isn’t hard for companies to do; provide a strong default password for the security (one that’s different for each unit) and provide a piece of paper with the password on it right on top of the router itself in the packaging. Unlike most recorded passwords, this one can probably stay within easy reach (say, right next to the router itself) as it mostly protects from outside access and not inside, approved access.
This is important, and not just for infringement liability purposes. The account holder could find himself or herself responsible if an outsider used the account to transmit viruses, child porn, or other obviously illicit activities which the law enforcement agencies scan for like hawks. It will be very difficult for you to prove that someone used their device on your network without your permission in court, even if you were to go as far as to log the MAC addresses of every device that connects to your Wi-Fi connection and subsequently prove that none of your devices have that address. This still doesn’t prove that you didn’t give permission, and you could still be held liable.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
n/t