Slashdot Mirror
Could That Be The Wireless Police Knocking?
netbuzz writes "Should private-property owners be required to practice safe wireless? Are the wireless police about to come a-knockin' on the front door of your castle? Network World reports on a condo complex in Arizona that will monitor your wireless signal for security. Is this the way all condos and apartment complexes should go?" From the article: "'We just kind of kicked it around the table and everybody said that's a helluva good idea, (mandatory encryption) ought to go in the declarations,' says Welch. However, a lawyer warned that wireless technology could quickly overrun any specific covenants they put to paper, 'so we decided that instead of recording (declarations) at the county that we would leave it up to the hotel manager to put it in their rules and regulations.' Why bother at all? 'We just don't want to see anybody hurt with their wireless system,' says Welch. 'If someone (unauthorized) were accessing it and an owner's information, there could be damage and a potential lawsuit.'"
There's a reason the law requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases. Let's examine a "worst case" scenario:
So, the cops find child porn online - what happens? They contact the ISP, perhaps get a warrant for the DHCP logs.
The logs show it was your IP. This gives them... probable cause for a search warrant. You get a nice visit from the friendly police squad, and they take your PC(s) as evidence.
Upon looking through your PC, they find *gasp* all kinds of porn, just no kiddie porn. Guess what, they have no case. They either drop it (likely, especially if you can demonstrate you had an open AP), or you get to rely on a judge or jury to drop it for them.
Eventually, justice prevails (possibly after a couple appeals and a lot of money), you get your stuff back, and you aren't convicted of anything.
Does it suck? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that you are an idiot, and "aiding and abetting" requires, among other things, mens rea (criminal intent). In other words, they have to demonstrate that you intended to violate the law. (There are civil issues, but we're talking criminal here).
It may be _unpleasant_ when someone uses your connection for something illegal; however, that doesn't automatically mean you are liable. In fact, courts tend to be hesitant to assign liability to ISPs that do not knowingly facilitate crimes. Imagine if Cox/Comcast were responsible for every illegal action performed by their users online. It would be "death by lawyers" for the internet.
If the ISPs were behind it, they'd simply mandate it in their TOS, and everyone would be caught by it
Regulation without enforcement is useless, and the ISPs can't enforce this. A landlord with a $14 keychain can.
It's the same reason why apartment complexs have and enforce policies against sharing cable. It's already against the cable company's rules, but the cable companies are powerless to stop it, or even tell that it's happening. That is why they either pay the complex for (illegal) sattelite dish restrictions and cable sharing restrictions. If they don't pay kickbacks, they threaten not to service the complex unless the restrictions are in place.
If you think tenancy laws matter one bit here, you've probably never lived in a very large complex. You talk about picking your battles... Lashing out against your argument is nothing. Try fighting every little breach of regulation by your landlord (or more likely: property manager). They know exactly how far they can go so that it isn't worth your time or money to take them to court, and they really push the limit.
Congratulations on being a typical over-reacting ad hominem throwing slashbot.
I feel my comment was appropriate in the context of the thread. If you chose to take it personally that's your problem. To a third party reading this story I think it accomplishes exactly what I intended.