Boston College Says Using WiFi Is a Sign of Infringement

An anonymous reader writes "Boston College has a funny idea of what constitutes copyright infringement. It has a list of what might be called 'you might be a copyright infringer if...' with the sort of things you might expect, such as using file sharing programs or sending mp3s to friends. But some have noticed something odd. Included on the list is using a wireless router in your dorm. Yes, just using a wireless router. Not using it for anything. But just using such a router is considered a sign of infringement. Nice to see our top colleges and universities teaching students completely made up things."

Comments

Ridiculous Reporting

[Adambomb]

As far as I can see, all Boston College is doing is making sure people are aware that others using their wap can make them look responsible for any infringement as the owner of the wap. This basically reads as "secure your router from others" or as "don't say we didn't warn you if that defense fails", not as "don't use wireless routers at all".

i suppose journalism just isn't fun these days without ignoring context.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[jhigh]

I read this the same way that you did, and I think that Boston College is being very responsible. Downstream liability is something that far too few people are familiar and, particularly on a college campus, many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense. I find it laudable that the college is trying to draw attention to the fact that this could lead to potential legal trouble for the individual sharing wireless access, should other users engage in copyright infringement using it. Journalism? I heard that died years ago...

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[techsoldaten]

The reporter does a fine job of pointing out the actual context. Slashdot is the group making accusations of absurdity. BC has edited the page to remove the point about wifi already.

What I really want to know is why universities think they need to be involved in a discussion about copyright protection anyway. I know they are targets of the predatory RIAA and this is a CYA move, but one might think Boston College would be above the fracas, have a clear and accurate understanding of the law, and inform people appropriately. This sounds like off the hip advice from an older systems admin with no understanding of what copyright really means in an online context.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You're right in that it's a failure in proper journalism, though I think Techdirt or Slashdot make that their mission.

Also, the example in the screen shot doesn't even tell the student to secure their router in any plain terms. If that's what they meant, then they failed in clarity. The BC page has been cleansed of that line entirely, it seems to me that they could have re-written it better instead, because it is a potential liability, whether or not we like it.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Adambomb]

The reporter uses the exact quotation of

So why is Boston College telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of infringement?

in the article itself. The submitter merely latched onto it blindly.

As to your other point i entirely agree.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Duncan J Murray]

It isn't just that - the university I attended allowed direct access to a number of expensive journals from their network - opening this up via a wifi router would not only infringe copyright, but also compromise the security of the university network.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[mwvdlee]

i suppose journalism just isn't fun these days without ignoring context.

I read this as "...without ignoring facts.".
Coincidentally equally true.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[dachshund]

many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense

It's amazing to me that, as a society, we've reached the point where statements like this seem reasonable.

I spent the other day visiting a well-known Ivy-league University that offers 'free' Wifi for guests --- provided the guests are willing to enter a complicated password that changes every day and click through some enormous ToS screen.

It occurred to me that this University was one of the first to stand up for the ideals of free speech, press and religion --- within a mile of where I stood, people had been imprisoned and shot defending these ideals. You would think that a place with such a storied history would understand that the massive /benefits/ of open (even anonymous) communication and that these benefits would trump whatever minimal edge-case risks there are due to copyright infringement, malware, etc.

(At least, these principles should trump the actual benefits of locking down everyone's Wifi network, a policy that seems to have a negligible effect on copyright infringement, malware, and the occurrence of bad things on the Internet.)

But that's not the society we live in, and this is certainly not the University it once was. More to the point, once you start saying things like 'unsecured Wifi access points are terrible' you need to start giving reasons. Is there really a security threat here that can't be dealt with using modern network isolation techniques. And to the same point, does locking down the residential network really stop the bad guys? Can't this mostly be worked around by someone who's willing to plug into a Cat5 jack located in a public place?

Or is all of this hyperventilating really all about protecting yourself from being wrongly accused of some not-very-important crime related to the transference of bits?

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[mcgrew]

Even if the "using wifi" is misreported in tfs, I think the "sending mp3s" is just as stupid, or more so. MP3s are how indie artists get their work heard; unlike MAFIAA bands, who have radio. Maybe things have changed since I was in school (I'm a geezer), but if not, there are a LOT of students who are musicians,

Hopefully, any kid smart enough to go to college is smart enough to know it's all rank bullshit from the MAFIAA, who are pulling this evil shit as a move against their competition -- the indies.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Albanach]

Downstream liability is something that far too few people are familiar and, particularly on a college campus, many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense.

Isn't interesting that ISPs are excluded from downstream liability. Colleges appear to be mostly excluded from downstream liability. Yet if you run an open access point to freely share bandwidth you have paid for, you risk losing the shirt off your back in lawsuits.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Zerth]

They should put a line stating "owning a computer connected our network may allow others to own your machine and share illegal material through it, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party."

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Carewolf]

That is the difference between practice and theory. In theory you are not liable for actions of others, and in theory you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. In practice you might be liable for the actions of others, precisely because you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

*) this of course only applies in countries with a rotten legal system

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[somersault]

is all of this hyperventilating really all about protecting yourself from being wrongly accused of some not-very-important crime related to the transference of bits?

There are worse things that can be downloaded through open networks, and I don't know about you, but I don't want any of that stigma attached to me. Accusations of such things have ruined peoples' lives.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your friends, but why not just give them the password to your properly secured network rather than risk a war driver downloading stuff on your connection?

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[bws111]

No, it is not interesting. You can get the same protections by following the same laws as the ISPs (Section 512 of USC 17):

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

Now, if you you can show how you notify and cut off users of your open wifi network, you get the same protections.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to start explaining what in the hell this has to do with free speech? You slashdots are idiots, remember its all about the evil corporations.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[omnichad]

Most colleges don't want personal wifi equipment anywhere on campus anyway. Too easy for them to be misconfigured and interfere with the wireless channel used for their own wifi. Being vague just prevents them from saying no twice.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[LordLimecat]

precisely because you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Thats not quite accurate; if they are pointing the finger at you, it is because they have evidence that A) illegal activity occurred at your [dorm | library station | house], and B) you were at said location.

You can argue that thats not enough, but to imply that there isnt some evidence is just incorrect. RIAA has had evidence; its just been bad evidence. And you will note the difficulty in actually getting a conviction with such bad evidence; all of the RIAAs wins have basically been either people who were guilty and perjured themselves into a corner (Tenenbaum), or people who were guilty and also... perjured themselves into a corner (Rasset). Nothing prevents you from falsly accusing your neighbor of something with tenuous evidence; youll simply lose your case and likely be liable for defense's costs (and possibly a countersuing).

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[gambino21]

is all of this hyperventilating really all about protecting yourself from being wrongly accused of some not-very-important crime related to the transference of bits?

There are worse things that can be downloaded through open networks

LOL, you can download worse things than bits? Please give an example of something you can download other than 'bits'.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Carewolf]

You can argue that thats not enough, but to imply that there isnt some evidence is just incorrect. RIAA has had evidence; its just been bad evidence. And you will note the difficulty in actually getting a conviction with such bad evidence; all of the RIAAs wins have basically been either people who were guilty and perjured themselves into a corner (Tenenbaum), or people who were guilty and also... perjured themselves into a corner (Rasset). Nothing prevents you from falsly accusing your neighbor of something with tenuous evidence; youll simply lose your case and likely be liable for defense's costs (and possibly a countersuing).

Does that distinction make a difference if a third party intervenes and enforces rules based on the RISK of getting sued?

Anyway I am glad to hear RIAA are losing many of these cases, I was starting to really worry about the state of US justice. Maybe I should be more optimistic? I have recently regained the faith in my local legal system because the danish equivalent to RIAA dropped all piracy cases after the danish supreme court ruled that an open WiFi does constitute a valid defense, and even in the one or two cases a conviction was achieved (by confession) the damages was set at cost-price per album shared which totaled only a few hundred dollars.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[yoghurt]

There are bits and then there are naughty bits. It's especially bad if these naughty bits belong to someone underage.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Entropius]

The university that I'm at (research I state school) allows a similar thing, but also allows such direct access from their public campus wifi.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Jane Q. Public]

I think the idea that mere "Accusations of such things have ruined peoples' lives." is nothing but a reinforcement of GP's point: our society has gone to hell in a handbasket.

History has clearly shown that without free and anonymous speech, you won't long have a free society.

I keep my wifi router open, on purpose, for that very reason. An illusion of "security" is not worth real loss of freedom.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Jane Q. Public]

The internet has everything to do with free speech. It is the main source of information today.

Facebook does not control the Internet. It only controls Facebook. You can "communicate" or "speak" on your own blog, open for anybody to see. Nobody controls that but you, and you don't need "your own server" to do that.

And yes, open access does have a lot to do with it. If you could only access your information through private parties that censored your speech (as you implied already happens), then free speech would already be dead. You can't have that both ways.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Jane Q. Public]

"... if they are pointing the finger at you, it is because they have evidence that A) illegal activity occurred at your [dorm | library station | house], and B) you were at said location."

You are proving to everybody that you have no idea what is really going on.

Have you followed any of the lawsuits over copyright infringement? The only "evidence" that they have had has often been only an IP address, and they have used very questionable methods to even get those. And IP addresses have nothing to do with "you", at all. It is only the address of a machine. And address that can change or even be spoofed by others.

And yes, the "recording industry" has, by and large, been losing their cases over these issues. In fact most of them have been thrown out. But that hasn't stopped them from trying, and intimidating people and extorting many thousands of dollars from them over exactly such "tenuous evidence".

I strongly suggest you get off your high horse about this issue, until such time as you get a clue about what has really been happening.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Kjella]

Sadly, there's a quite large difference between anonymous speech and speech that gets pinned on the wrong man. If I put an anonymous note in everyone's mailbox most likely no one will be blamed. But if I use someone's WiFi, that person is likely to be blamed. The University is no better off, if they shield their users they catch the whole shit storm. Perhaps if most people wanted it, but reality is that most people want there to be some shade of gray where people are so mostly anonymous and left alone, but those that are nasty criminal whatever they can be tracked down. Today that layer is the IP layer, the average Joe can't map an IP to a person but an ISP can and the police can request it from the ISP. Or at least to the subscriber, who you can investigate further if it's a household member/tenant/open wifi/hacked pc or whatever.

Totally open networks or anonymous networks are too absolute for them, you can't have a system of law if you can't catch any criminals. This is probably going to be a BSD vs GPL-style flamewar but total freedom is anarchy. Nobody has to give a fuck what everyone else thinks, it doesn't matter if a law has 99.99% support if it doesn't have support with the 0.01% that actually break it. And for those who go all "sticks and stones may break my bones, but bits and bytes will never hurt me" I'll just Godwin this thread to say Hitler didn't kill many with his own two hands. Death threats don't get any less real just because they're over the Internet. There are things that are and should be crimes, even online. But that won't matter much if all investigations stop at a dead end.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[somersault]

I don't think it's just modern society that works this way. If for example 300 years ago people got wind that you might be a pedo or homo (and assuming their society was against these things), you'd probably end up having to move. These days though, with the internet and sensationalist media, there's a good chance that you will be harassed whatever you do.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[HermMunster]

Though it can be read that way, it is stupid to even conceive adding that to the document, for it just puts fear in the student body and lacks any real merit--of which the student body would wrongly judge.

The point is that wireless routers can be locked down. Wireless routers are everywhere in almost all homes and businesses. There's no need to tell them not to have one because it leads them to draw conclusions that are NOT realistic.

They should have prefaced it with the fact that the router should be secured and that they should only share it with other students that are not likely to get them in trouble. Hell, anyone can loan their car out, but you'll only loan it to those you trust that won't use it to commit a crime (not that copyright infringement is a crime because it isn't (only distribution of copyrighted material is)), or cause an accident that results in harm or death.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[tchdab1]

I'm assuming this is in the USA, where corporate liability trumps usage for the common good, because they have more money to affect legislation and their legislation reflects their needs and reality. If I were to say it's time to stand up and take it back, we would be straying too far from this topic and into politics.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[rgviza]

Ironically as of this writing, that line has been removed. I had started to state that the article was wrong til I saw the snapshot of the page taken earlier.

They were right tho. If you have a wireless router, and others download stuff through it, you will get blamed for it. You may walk away unscathed but you'll have to defend yourself and that costs money. Your connection = your responsibility.

They were doing their students a favor by informing them of how that works. It's too bad it's gone because that article twisted the meaning of what BC was trying to tell it's students. Students (actually everyone) should probably be informed about it.

Copyright violation is the least of your worries though. The scary stuff is strangers downloading kiddie porn through your connection.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[mcmonkey]

It occurred to me that this University was one of the first to stand up for the ideals of free speech, press and religion --- within a mile of where I stood, people had been imprisoned and shot defending these ideals. You would think that a place with such a storied history would understand that the massive /benefits/ of open (even anonymous) communication and that these benefits would trump whatever minimal edge-case risks there are due to copyright infringement, malware, etc.

(At least, these principles should trump the actual benefits of locking down everyone's Wifi network, a policy that seems to have a negligible effect on copyright infringement, malware, and the occurrence of bad things on the Internet.)

But that's not the society we live in, and this is certainly not the University it once was. More to the point, once you start saying things like 'unsecured Wifi access points are terrible' you need to start giving reasons.

Because that WiFi is a natural resource which just grows out of the earth without water or fertilizer.

Oh wait, no it doesn't.

Do you also complain the same university doesn't have someone on every corner handing out free printing presses? How about cell phone service? Do you expect free service (to go along with the free phones available everywhere) on campus?

Securing Wifi access points is not a free speech issue.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Easily done. You flash a typical Hot Spot software into your cheap router with an initial intercept page and a huge EULA in it threatening dire consequences for "piracy" etc, then you allow free access after people register with some made up user ids and passwords.

You can also set up a web server facing the other way with a form for DMCA complaints so that the big media (in theory) can ask to cut of particular users.

Now this probably would fail, because as many pointed out, the law in North America is has no longer anything to do with justice and large conglomerates end up with verdicts that show that there is one law for the social elites and a completely different one for everybody else, but doing this would satisfy the legal requirements and make the utter hypocrisy of the whole "justice" system just a bit more visible.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[HermMunster]

How does a student at BC use their smart phone, wireless PS3, their laptop, their wireless printer without a router? Having one makes them a target of the campus authorities policing infringement? How about the fact that most students share a room and have friends over for gaming sessions? Even if they did modify/remove it, the implications are/were the same--false stereotyping that wireless router users are probably guilty of copyright infringement.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[bws111]

I see. So your bright idea to supporting this on an 'open wifi' is to make the wifi not open (if you require userids and passwords it isn't open, regardless of what the actual over-the-air protocol is doing).

Next, I assume this is present day we are talking about, so IPV4 is still what is being used. You do own the block of addresses you are handing out to your users, and you are logging who was using what address when, right? I mean, you're not so dumb as to be using NAT are you (because that makes all traffic look like it belongs to you, not your 'users')? If you are using NAT, you're logging who you gave an address to, and what activity they had on that address, right?

So someone sends you a DMCA notice and says at such-and-such a date on such-and-such a time copyright infringement was occurring on your addresses you own. You do have the proper procedures in place to identify who was generating the traffic they are complaining about, and you can properly notify that person, and after multiple occurrences you can cut them (and only them) off (and make sure they don't just 'make up' another id), right?

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I see. So your bright idea to supporting this on an 'open wifi' is to make the wifi not open (if you require userids and passwords it isn't open, regardless of what the actual over-the-air protocol is doing).

It is open if the user ids and passwords are accepted from all comers as soon as you register them, very much the same way IRC is still open even though you need to register you nick/password on most channels.

Since there is nothing tying you personally (other then your MAC address) to the completely arbitrary nick/id and since there are no restrictions on how many nicks can you get and when, how is this affecting "openness"?!

Next, I assume this is present day we are talking about, so IPV4 is still what is being used. You do own the block of addresses you are handing out to your users, and you are logging who was using what address when, right? I mean, you're not so dumb as to be using NAT are you (because that makes all traffic look like it belongs to you, not your 'users')? If you are using NAT, you're logging who you gave an address to, and what activity they had on that address, right?

No. The law does not specify that you cannot use NAT nor that you have to keep records. Only that you, quote a): adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; - which we have: user ids and MAC addresses. And, quote: accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures, which is the case as NAT is a "standard technical measure", deployed by the tens of millions of instances worldwide.

So someone sends you a DMCA notice and says at such-and-such a date on such-and-such a time copyright infringement was occurring on your addresses you own. You do have the proper procedures in place to identify who was generating the traffic they are complaining about, and you can properly notify that person, and after multiple occurrences you can cut them (and only them) off (and make sure they don't just 'make up' another id), right?

My measures are no different than those of an ISP. What stops a user from moving to another address and using 2nd removed cousin's name who happened to be at present in Bolivia? Most ISPs have no provisions whatsoever for verifying real-world IDs and are happy if you pay the bill, under whatever name.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[sabt-pestnu]

> Facebook does not control the Internet. It only controls Facebook. You can "communicate" or "speak" on your own blog, open for anybody to see. Nobody controls that but you, and you don't need "your own server" to do that.

... Unless you are an ISP yourself, your ISP has control of your own server (in the sense that they can disconnect you). If you don't have your own server, then the server hosting your blog has similar power over your blog.

I'll point out that the parent made essentially the same point: if your blog is on Blogspot or Blogger, you are beholden to said service. In that context, I don't understand how you say "nobody controls (your blog) but you".

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[bws111]

I did not paste the entire law, I assumed people would be smart enough to look it up on their own. The phrase 'not interfere with standard technical measures' is defined in the law as:
 

Definition. — As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works

It has nothing to do with NAT. Also, I did not say you couldn't use NAT, I said it would be stupid (because it substantially harms your ability to identify the infringer - see below).

There is another whole section of the law (h) that deals with the service providers responsibility to disclose to the copyright holder information that can be used to identify the infringer when subpoenaed . If you have a way to identify the infringer that does not involve keeping logs, good for you. However "must have been some unknown person using my open wifi" is not going to go very far in giving you safe harbor.

Lastly, yeah, moving to a new address is exactly the same as creating a new dummy user id.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[IgnoramusMaximus]

that deals with the service providers responsibility to disclose to the copyright holder information that can be used to identify the infringer when subpoenaed . If you have a way to identify the infringer that does not involve keeping logs, good for you. However "must have been some unknown person using my open wifi" is not going to go very far in giving you safe harbor.

I actually I did not say there would be no logs, only that the law does not list them as a requirement by name. I would have to log logon/logoff times of ids/MAC addresses. When DMCA request arrives stating the 3 times the infringement occured (remember law talks about "multiple" offenders) I would simply look up and terminate all (going beyond the call of duty! eager to comply with the spirit of the law! the extra mile!) accounts that were active at those times and send the complainer a report of what user ids/MAC addresses were terminated. By doing so I complied with the law, terminated the offenders and disclosed, in good faith, all of the information on them available to me.

Lastly, yeah, moving to a new address is exactly the same as creating a new dummy user id.

I fail to see how specifics make any difference. All that counts is that an average ISP is as defenseless against fake driver licenses, phony resident's names and the like as I am against forged MAC addresses. They can be no more reasonably expected to do retina scans and keep global biometrics databases then I to run around with a radiation detector and pounce on people whom I suspect of changing WiFi MAC addresses on their laptops.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[thegarbz]

Sounds like a funny case of miss-wording. I had to go through a workplace harassment online course a few months ago, the unfortunate wording was:

The following can be considered forms of sexual harassment:

Groping
Pinching
Any unwanted contact
Unwanted advancements
Sending email
Bullying
Spreading rumors

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[icebraining]

He's not complaining, he's lamenting the loss of ideals.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[icebraining]

You can "communicate" or "speak" on your own blog, open for anybody to see. Nobody controls that but you, and you don't need "your own server" to do that.

Where? Show me a blog/web hosting service which doesn't reserve the right to shut your blog down at any time for some reason.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[LordLimecat]

You are proving to everybody that you have no idea what is really going on.

And you proved that you didnt get past the first line of my post, to where i stated "it may be bad evidence....", or where i stated

And you will note the difficulty in actually getting a conviction with such bad evidence; all of the RIAAs wins have basically been either people who were guilty and perjured themselves into a corner (Tenenbaum), or people who were guilty and also... perjured themselves into a corner (Rasset).

Theres some kind of irony in claiming I need a clue, and then arguing for the very thing I stated in my post due to readingfail.

Re:Ridiculous Reporting

[Jane Q. Public]

"And you proved that you didnt get past the first line of my post, to where i stated "it may be bad evidence...."

The first line of your post? Obviously you are having trouble reading your own post.

The "first line" contradicts everything you wrote in the rest of your post. That's not a readingfail on my part, it's a writingfail on yours.

Ears or Eyes open is a sign of infringement too !

[ami.one]

Ears or Eyes open is a sign of infringement too. All college staff to keep 'em closed from now on. Students can keep them open 'cause they're already infringing due to presence of router etc

It's a sin

[kmdrtako]

But all will be forgiven if you go to confession.

And, it's gone now

[LocalH]

http://www.bc.edu/offices/help/security/copyright/illegalexamples.html

I love how websites fall over backwards to wipe out things like this, as if it never happened. If it weren't for the screenshot in the linked article, I'd have thought that whoever submitted this was an idiot.

Re:And, it's gone now

[AaxelB]

Also, there's Google's cached version.

But regardless, I'd probably remove it, too, since there's a huge, unreasonable, internet shitstorm over nothing. Yes, their example is oversimplified, but it's intended for the average college freshman (not always the brightest tool in the shed). It's also an example of things they would be wise to avoid, not a rule. If you don't know how to secure your router, it's probably best not to set one up in your dorm room.

Re:And, it's gone now

[squiggleslash]

Nah, the submitter is still an idiot. The original screenshot shows the original text, where it's obvious they're talking about sharing your Internet connection with others being risky because those users might commit copyright infringement with it appearing to be coming from your system.

"* Using a wireless router in your room; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party."

Basically this story ought to be pulled. The wording could be better, but the college's advice is actually good advice.

Re:And, it's gone now

[Anonymous Coward]

I still find this one funny.

Burning CD copies of music you have downloaded and then giving them to all your friends.

So is it ok if I give them to some of my friends? Or maybe just my family?

Re:And, it's gone now

[FooAtWFU]

Why is the campus allowing students to put their own WiFi routers on the school network, anyway? I mean, I might be biased because part of my job is to work on a product designed to detect that and alert administrators so they can shut it down (complete with pretty maps of where the device is).

But I was under the impression that unauthorized wireless on your network was Widely Considered a Bad Thing. (What, do the students have a third-party internet connection or something??)

Re:And, it's gone now

[omnichad]

That's my assumption of why it didn't give instructions on securing your router. They wanted to present it as just another reason not to have one at all.

Re:And, it's gone now

[ElectricTurtle]

Campus networks and corporate networks are really, really different animals. I used to work in a major university's IT dept. In the first place, the network is always considered compromised. Perimeter security (which has been an outmoded paradigm for at least a decade anyway) isn't even bothered with as theater. Unlike a corporate network, there is no standard build/image for the students' systems, no OS standards, no patching standards, no guaranty of access or efficacy of group policy, etc. It's a hodge-podge of a hundred different brands/configs running a hundred different OSes, and most of them are laptops that walk in and out the door everyday to go off and pick up amazing malware from friends, family, and public access.

Now granted I only have experience with the way one institution handled things, but I wager that a lot of them are similar. Pretty much the only thing we did on the security side was make sure that one or two systems weren't using up huge portions of the available bandwidth. When that happened they were tracked down and given a talking-to. Otherwise it's herding cats, and there were so many usability issues every day we didn't have the time/manpower to worry about zoomj what if somebody has an open access point?!

Re:And, it's gone now

[HTH NE1]

Why is the campus allowing students to put their own WiFi routers on the school network, anyway?

When I was in college, you weren't permitted to install any router or hub in your room, wireless or wired. Only one computer per room access port. Of course it happened anyway. You'd only get caught if the RA noticed and ratted you out. Actual audits of IP-MAC associations only occurred at the end of the year unless a problem was detected.

Surprisingly, when the RIAA came knocking, they disavowed having logged any such information, though it was quite possible they had stopped and deleted the previous records since the last time I worked there. Odd though, considering they were monitoring traffic usage by protocol and considering throttling or completely blocking bittorrent and p2p activity when I left.

Re:And, it's gone now

[Vegemeister]

256 bits of WPA2 key from /dev/random say otherwise.

Re:And, it's gone now

[Kjella]

Well yes, but it's also under a heading with "Examples of copyright infringement" and clearly the implication is that "if you do as in one of the bullet points here, you're violating copyright law". In no way is it an offense for you to run an open router, even if others do as described in the example. The advice also doesn't actually say open or unprotected or anything like that either, it just says don't use wireless at all. So it's both flawed and misplaced, but I agree it looks more like sloppy handiwork rather than a misunderstanding of copyright law.

If they moved it out of that section and said "We strongly recommend securing your wireless or using a wired network; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party." that would be good advice, this wasn't.

removed

[mayberry42]

It seems the wireless router item was removed from the site. Guess it's not such a sign, after all....

Maybe it's right

[mysidia]

Included on the list is using a wireless router in your dorm.

It actually says....

Using a wireless router in your room; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party.

Think about this for a moment. For the average person who does not take reasonable measures to secure their wireless AP against unauthorized access, this is true.

The average newbie/non-geek who just buys an Wireless AP+Router combination device and plugs it in, will be operating in open wireless mode.... that means other students can connect and use their internet connection.

This has a potential to result in claims of contributory infringement, when other students connect to the open AP and upload MP3s to peer to peer networks or perform other infringing activities.

Re:Maybe it's right

[gnasher719]

This has a potential to result in claims of contributory infringement, when other students connect to the open AP and upload MP3s to peer to peer networks or perform other infringing activities.

It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.

Re:Maybe it's right

[mlts]

Even factoring the IP infringement out of the equation, a wireless router gives an unscrupulous person leeway to do a lot of things, all of which would be blamed on the router's owner. Some routers might log MAC addresses, but these are trivial to forge, and if they are not, one can get a USB wireless dongle to do the dirty work, then throw it away.

A couple examples:

1: A launch point for hacking the resident network. Dorm networks tend to be pretty low in security, so someone would be able to get something unless the college's IT department is up to snuff.

2: Spam. If a university admin is clued, outgoing port 25 is locked down tightly, and all mail either uses the proper port, or goes through the university's SMTP server.

3: Internal phishing attacks. A thorough hit on the university's mail server by phishers likely would get some compromised accounts, which could be used for anything from fraud, to a better base for spamming, or if the user uses the same password university wide, access to decent boxes (and possibly root access if the admins don't keep up on exploits). Since the address would be coming in from the university, people would tend to trust it more.

Obviously it was misworded, and with all the outrageous stuff going on about IP law, people would get peeved about the statement that a wireless router would contribute to it. However, getting students to lock down their wireless access is a good thing. Other colleges just admin their own wireless network segments and prohibit wireless routers altogether in the dorm rooms (due to bandwidth saturation), and use direction finding hardware to detect and deal with students breaking that rule.

Re:Maybe it's right

[mysidia]

It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.

Well, it's true that it does make you look like an infringer as well; and if you do the possess the AP and hardware that facilitated it, your connection did do the downloading, and possession is 9/10 of the law..... the student will have a hell a time proving in court they weren't the one who'd done it.

You suggest it's not true, if others did the infringing -- but that is not necessarily the case.

If you allow your connection to be used with the knowledge it might be used to facilitate an illegal act, out of your own negligence, such as infringement, especially if you do anything that might be viewed as encouraging or profiting from that act, then you are complicit with that act, and you fail to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or prevent that, then the court may find you guilty of infringement.

Just the way the makers of third-party Teddy Ruxpin tapes were sued and found liable. Although they did not commit the infringing act (the end user might infringe) -- they were found liable for copyright infringement.

Just the way Napster or KaZaa were guilty of infringement -- not for copying material themselves, but for contributing to a 3rd party's infringement.

The same as if you leave the front door to your house unlocked when you leave, you can be liable for illegal actions neighborhood kids commit in your house.

Also, as an individual, you are not protected from claims of anothers' infringement by the DMCA safe harbor, since you don't fit the service provider definitions.

Re:Redacted

[himself]

The IT staff at B.C. (disclosure: my alma mater) is very clueful. For example, I was up there two weeks ago for a regional higher-ed event called Security Camp that they hosted, and their speaker was as current and savvy as the other speakers (who included a Senior Auditor from UMass, a guy from Harvard, and someone from Children's Hospital).

I have no doubt that they redacted the page because, as was pointed out, the language was awkward -- and not because they "got caught" doing something.

Re:new even older new bible; christianity shrugs

[techsoldaten]

I am sure the BIAA (the religious version of the RIAA) is all over this to prevent unauthorized copies. Codices are notoriously easy to copy and distribute amongst various followings and there's going to be a need for new laws to prevent religion from undergoing the same thing we saw wih the music industry.

Codex sharing is just plain wrong, it costs people jobs and we need to take action against it before it gets out of hand.

No story here. Move along.

[gsslay]

This is just a badly laid out webpage, so that the section about the risks of having an open wireless router is listed alongside examples of what may be copyright infringement. Anyone with half a brain would realise this. But I guess stirring up a fuss about absolutely nothing is a surer way of getting your story on Slashdot.

They're involved because of the HEOA.

[langelgjm]

What I really want to know is why universities think they need to be involved in a discussion about copyright protection anyway.

Probably because due to intense lobbying by the MPAA et al., in the Higher Education Opportunity Act the federal government included stipulations that schools receiving federal money adopt certain procedures regarding copyright infringement and file-sharing. See, e.g., http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/HEOA/34600.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be because they are an institution of learning and copyright is law.

Do you complain about their rape awareness programs?

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you complain about their rape awareness programs?

Godwin is impressed.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[Artifakt]

Universities choose to create rape awareness programs. There's even a limited amount of government mandate encouraging universities to create rape awareness programs (Some of them have gotten government grant funding for such programs). But there's no private organisation demanding such programs under penalty of law. N.O.W. isn't demanding that universities not get federal money unless they implement rape awareness programs. No rape victims have filed any class action lawsuits to enjoin any university from receiving federal funds until they have their rape awareness program in place or tried to dictate the exact contents of one.
      People are complaining that this should not be a matter of law - that's the point you seem to have missed in your straw man attack.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[Entropius]

Marijuana prohibition is law too, but in biopsychology classes on the effects of drugs they don't set out to specifically pimp marijuana prohibition; they study it impartially and academically.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[HermMunster]

Having a wireless router is not an indication of copyright infringement. So, either they are a failure at law or both law and being an institution of learning.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[HermMunster]

Programs such as those come out of student fees which are already quite high. Most communities have these types programs, so creating them at the institution of higher learning would duplicate what is offered already by the community at additional cost to the students. Students generally feel that if they are going to be taxed by Student Fee programs that the institution at least address these problems first in the community without duplicating the services.

Re:They're involved because of the HEOA.

[DragonWriter]

Do you complain about their rape awareness programs?

I have. Of course, it was when part of the program involved hanging signs in the dorms including one whose entire text was "Men rape".

That the idea of an "awareness program" related to a particular subject might not be bad in and of itself (and might even be good) does not automatically make invalid criticism of the conduct of the "awareness program".
 

Re:Edited already

[smelch]

I email songs to myself all the time. Usually I embed them in images. This way I'm not plugging in a USB device to my work machine, and not looking like I'm emailing music to myself. High resolution pictures of the earth are great for burying data in.

This just in...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Submitter is an idiot

You've got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

"many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense."

I think you've got it backwards, the desire to help out your friends by sharing your wifi IS common sense. The paranoia and fear that large corporations and their lawyers will descend on you and destroy you for helping your friends is antisocial. Fear of antisocial litigation is the disease that is traumatizing our society.
I am not saying that it is unjustified fear but look at it this way, if you are a decent social person and share your wifi with your friends/neighbors and you get a takedown notice or worse for it, the corporations have exerted their power over you. If you never share because you fear such repercussions, you have already lost, you have no power of your own and the corporations have complete control of your life, and your thoughts.

Re:You've got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem there is that your "friends" will gladly use your WAP to infringe copyright and won't even say, "sorry dude" when you get hit with an infringement suit. If your "friends" could be trusted to not cause problems for you then having open wireless (or at least wireless with the password shared among your "friends" would be a lot safer. Today it isn't.

Re:You've got it backwards

[LordLimecat]

The paranoia and fear that large corporations and their lawyers will descend on you and destroy you for helping your friends is antisocial.

If you let every stranger borrow your gun, you are likely to get in a heap of trouble. If you let every stranger drive your car, you are likely to get a heap of tickets. If you sublet your appartment to strangers, dont act suprised when you get the bill for their property damage.

Why do you expect it to be so different for wifi?

Re:You've got it backwards

[ElectricTurtle]

Lending out firearms vs. allowing people to use an internet connection are not parallel scenarios. Are Starbucks or public libraries criminally liable for what people do on their wireless networks? Hell no. If somebody walked into a hotel, picked up a courtesy phone and made a death threat, would the hotel be liable for having a courtesy phone? Of course not. Public access does not always equate to public liability, especially when it comes to communications.

Re:You've got it backwards

[lightknight]

Because, with a little finagling, I can claim common carrier status for wifi, even as a college student?

The problem here isn't lose of life or property damage. The problem here, aside from the usual "unauthorized users, who may not be a part of the college" excuse, is that they are looking for someone to sue, and subpenaing a student's router is an extra legal expense.

Wouldn't it all just be easier if everyone had static IPs, and they could just send SWAT to pick you up at the address of that registered IP? Why are you trying to make the investigator's / lawyer's jobs harder than they need to be? Who needs DHCP, it's obviously a hacker's protocol, being able to easily change addresses!

Re:You've got it backwards

[Quirkz]

And yet, if you let strangers borrow a screwdriver, a cup of sugar, your lawnmower, a paintbrush, a book, a pencil, or any of a million other things, there's absolutely zero chance that you'll ever have any problems at all (other than maybe getting the item back, or the lawnmower being out of gas when you next want to use it). Selectively picking 1) a weapon, and 2) an extremely expensive licensed item, and 3) a dwelling that you pay a deposit on as examples is going to skew expectations. You'd need to demonstrate that it's common sense for someone to equate wireless with any of those things, rather than with a common tool, or a basic utility like electric or water, except for most people it's not even metered like electric and water are.

Re:You've got it backwards

[gambino21]

Why do you expect it to be so different for wifi?

It's different for wifi because there is no opportunity for physical damage. A car or a gun can actually kill someone or cause damage to a person or physical property. A wifi connection cannot be used to cause any physical harm.

If I sublet my apartment, I am taking into account a risk of damage. And believe it or not, some people would be willing to accept the risk of property damage in order to help a fellow human being. If I want to help out my neighbours by sharing my wi-fi, why shouldn't I be able to do that without taking the full blame for anything they do.

As another example, let's say someone walks into my front yard and beats up another person. Should I be blamed for that because I didn't put a fence around my yard to keep them out? I don't have a problem with people walking through my front yard (to a certain extent), but I also don't think I should be blamed for their actions.

Re:You've got it backwards

[calmofthestorm]

Do you really mean to draw an analogy between access to information and access to a deadly weapon?

Re:You've got it backwards

[clang_jangle]

Wouldn't it all just be easier if everyone had static IPs, and they could just send SWAT to pick you up at the address of that registered IP?

It's called ipv6, and we'll have it pretty soon. Should make life easier in a number of ways, sadly will also give the IPP (Imaginary Property Parasites) a leg up.

Re:You've got it backwards

[HuntingHades]

So if someone uses your open wifi connection to do any of the following, you're expecting that the police or FBI won't come knocking on your door just because you have open wifi?

Examples of wifi activity that could cause problems:

• Child pornography
• Sending death threats, bomb threats, other terroristic acts
• Large amounts of file sharing (hundreds of GB)
• Script kiddies and other want to be hackers using your wifi connection
• VOIP Caller ID spoofing for "swatting" and other similar pranks

If the college gets a request/subpoena for an IP address owner, they're going to give the room/resident that the wifi router is in, and that student will have to deal with the consequences. Even if they can eventually show it wasn't actually them, they're the one that will be targeted.
Sharing protected wifi with trusted friends is ok. Leaving a wifi router open in a college dormitory is not a good idea. Connecting to an open wifi connection in a dorm is probably just as bad of an idea, unless you know what you're actually connecting to.

Re:You've got it backwards

[davester666]

The difference is...you are not a corporation. Corporations have more rights and fewer responsibilities than individuals.

Re:You've got it backwards

[HermMunster]

Why would an (in)secure router be any of Boston College's (BC) business? It isn't a service to spread around false notions. If your router is properly secured, few will have enough knowledge about how to break into it and do you wrong. Remember, they were telling them to forget having a router (and, how does a dorm room with more than one student share their internet connection between their desktop, their wireless printer, their laptop, their wireless PS3, their smart phone, etc., without a router?). They didn't tell them to secure their routers. They seem to be operating on behalf of the entertainment industry using the industry's failed logic--remember they were the ones that said that copyright infringement funds money laundering efforts and leads to terrorism.

BC has no more business being involved in that than they do in policing other activities similar activities.

For instance, the same could be said about their CD/DVD copying programs or the use of the photo copier. You don't see the would-be authorities go after BC when students are caught copying copyrighted works on campus copiers. So much fuss isn't seen when students use campus computer equipment to make a copy of a music CD or movie DVD ("BC--lock those down or we'll sue you"). Or how about the blue boxes Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak sold to dorm residents at Stanford? Do you think the whole industry went crazy after Stanford for the actions of their students making illegal long distance calls? Back then calling long distance was incredibly expensive. My point is that it is none of BC's business to make claims such as this in such an inflammatory manner with such unprovable diatribe.

This points to the fact that their argument does not address other things, instead it focuses just on one method where copyright infringement could take place--and even if it did, remember, they'd still have to prove it in a court of law.

And, again, we lock our routers down for that purpose and only lend it out to those we trust. Since when has one kid that got another in trouble ever felt moral enough to apologize? Don't you think kids understand that?

Re:You've got it backwards

[rgviza]

Actually they _are_ parallel scenarios, and are a lot more parallel than you are considering. What if your friend downloads kiddie porn or tries to hack NSA through your connection. Now you are a pervert terrorist hacker and the FBI is beating down _your_ dorm room door in the middle of the night (not your buddies), putting a black bag over your head, kicking your ass, and hauling you to a windowless basement in some classified location to be interrogated. Do you REALLY want to go there?

Eventually they'd figure out they got the wrong guy. They'd release you with a "sorry charlie, you should really secure your connection next time" and release you with a smile and a smack on the ass.

Copyright infringement is the _least_ of your worries. Secure your connection or you are really asking for it. You can do a lot more (financial anyway) damage with a computer and a network connection than you ever could with a gun. I've heard of people shutting down power grids by running nmap (SYN/ACK fingerprinting tests) against the SCADA OS2 control systems. Granted they were the network people that worked for the power company, but anyone could have done it. That's all it takes.

Re:You've got it backwards

[ElectricTurtle]

If somebody is going to try to hack the NSA, they have the skill to break the trivial encryption on wireless networks too. So what does that mean? No wireless networks ever? Live in fear? Fuck that.

There have already been cases where people have deliberately planted CP on some schmuck's PC to try to frame them as a sex offender. Framing people (deliberately or incidentally) is hardly a new phenomenon, and the justice system will be forced to adapt to these new expressions of it effectively.

If somebody wanted to, right now they could rent a car that looked like mine, forge a license plate, and run tons of red lights with cameras (or those even worse speed cameras some shitty jurisdictions have), and I'd get the bill. Does that mean I live in fear? Permanently log the coordinates of my vehicle all the time? Whatever.

In the first and more practical place, there is the protection of simple probability. All of these things are so unlikely that special effort against them is a waste of time. In the second and more subjective place, it's a matter of principle. I refuse to live a paranoid life. I'm not going to tiptoe around every corner expecting a serial killer, or never go online so I can never be hacked/phished/framed for criminal activity, or even be anything less than my true self for fear of what it might do to my future. If my true self isn't my future too, what's the point? Fuck. That. Shit.

Re:You've got it backwards

[rdrr66]

Why would an (in)secure router be any of Boston College's (BC) business? It isn't a service to spread around false notions. If your router is properly secured, few will have enough knowledge about how to break into it and do you wrong. Remember, they were telling them to forget having a router (and, how does a dorm room with more than one student share their internet connection between their desktop, their wireless printer, their laptop, their wireless PS3, their smart phone, etc., without a router?). They didn't tell them to secure their routers. They seem to be operating on behalf of the entertainment industry using the industry's failed logic--remember they were the ones that said that copyright infringement funds money laundering efforts and leads to terrorism.

BC has no more business being involved in that than they do in policing other activities similar activities.

For instance, the same could be said about their CD/DVD copying programs or the use of the photo copier. You don't see the would-be authorities go after BC when students are caught copying copyrighted works on campus copiers. So much fuss isn't seen when students use campus computer equipment to make a copy of a music CD or movie DVD ("BC--lock those down or we'll sue you"). Or how about the blue boxes Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak sold to dorm residents at Stanford? Do you think the whole industry went crazy after Stanford for the actions of their students making illegal long distance calls? Back then calling long distance was incredibly expensive. My point is that it is none of BC's business to make claims such as this in such an inflammatory manner with such unprovable diatribe.

This points to the fact that their argument does not address other things, instead it focuses just on one method where copyright infringement could take place--and even if it did, remember, they'd still have to prove it in a court of law.

And, again, we lock our routers down for that purpose and only lend it out to those we trust. Since when has one kid that got another in trouble ever felt moral enough to apologize? Don't you think kids understand that?

It's their business, because it's their network. And if you had actually look on their site a little further, you could have read their "Technological and Information Resources Use Agreement", and the "Professional Standards and Business Conduct -- Use of University Technological and Information Resources" document.

Here is a little snippet...

All users of technological and information resources are responsible for the protection of University assets and for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of the information to which they have access. Resources are not to be abused or employed in such a way as to interfere with, or cause harm or damage to, another person, institution, or company within or outside the Boston College community. While the University encourages the exploration of educational and scholarly interests through the use of its technological resources, respect for the rights and privacy of others must be observed.

Re:You've got it backwards

[rogueippacket]

Actually, stateless auto-configuration for IPv6 does allow a random address to be assigned instead of one derived from your MAC address. Furthermore, MAC addresses can be spoofed on any operating system. It can even be spoofed on just about every Internet gateway.
Some ISPs do track MAC/IP assignments per customer, but honestly, there is nothing to gain from them doing so. And since IPv6 assigns addresses derived from the MAC address of the router, there is a good chance your IPv6 Internet address will be quite dynamic.

Re:You've got it backwards

[uniquename72]

So if someone uses your open wifi connection to do any of the following, you're expecting that the police or FBI won't come knocking on your door just because you have open wifi? Examples of wifi activity that could cause problems...

"Causing problems" != "legally liable"

The cops can come knocking on my door for no reason whatsoever; that doesn't mean I'm going to jail.

Re:You've got it backwards

[BronsCon]

Of course! DHCP does stand for Designed to Hide Child Pornographers, afterall.

Re:You've got it backwards

[SCPRedMage]

Yeah, how dare he specifically pick items that can be used for actions that inherently have consequences! I mean, it's not like he was trying to demonstrate that blindly letting people use your stuff that can be used for actions that inherently have consequences confers some level of responsibility for hose actions!

Re:You've got it backwards

[Redlazer]

You have shitty friends.

Re:You've got it backwards

[HuntingHades]

The cops can come knocking on my door for no reason whatsoever; that doesn't mean I'm going to jail.

True, but it would still be simpler to avoid the hassle and accusations altogether. Most college students generally don't have the spare cash for a defense attorney if they end up facing an overzealous prosecutor who decides to press charges. And if law enforcements decides to confiscate your computer equipment as evidence to prove or disprove it was you (since their warrant after tracking your IP would probably call for taking your computers), you're SOL if your term papers and other assignments were all stored on it. Even if you weren't responsible for what caused the original subpoena for the IP, a lot of college students (and other people) probably have at least a few things on their computer that would have questionable legality.

Re:You've got it backwards

[SCPRedMage]

Right, sorry. All analogies must be 100% accurate, otherwise they're completely worthless, and anyone who thinks otherwise must obviously be a retarded in-bred monkey.

In this case, since the two items can't be used to perform exactly the same illegal acts, the OP must, of course, be a retarded in-bred monkey. I mean, you can kill a person with a gun, and you can kill a person with a computer (or anything else you're capable of bludgeoning someone with), but since you can't download kiddie porn onto your gun, obviously the computer is FAR worse than the gun...

Re:You've got it backwards

[Quirkz]

What in the world are you talking about? Your strawman mischaracterizations of my objection are ridiculous, and nobody's slinging names here but you (hypothetically, by putting those words in my mouth). The absurd discussion of bludgeoning someone with a computer and downloading illegal material onto a gun only serves to illustrate my point that the layman won't ever lump those two things together in their mind.

Story Understates Boston College Gaffe

[skywire]

The story characterizes the Boston College webpage content as providing "a list of what might be called 'you might be a copyright infringer if...'. But that is being far, far too kind. If you actually look at the content as displayed in the article, you will see that what is being offered is a list of examples of actual infringing activities, labeled as such ("Common Examples of Copyright Infringement"). Thus the inclusion of possession of a wireless router in the list is not just an error regarding what correlates with infringement (analogous to including "having more than one drink at a party" in a "You might be an alcoholic if..." list). It is flat-out, inexcusably, wrong.

Re:Story Understates Boston College Gaffe

[JohnM4]

The complete sentence continues "others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party." You cannot take the part of a sentence before a semicolon and ignore the rest that qualifies the situation and then call the whole thing "flat-out, inexcusably, wrong." If others share illegal material through your router, that in fact would be an example of copyright infringement. Your interpretation is "flat-out, inexcusably, wrong."

Re:Story Understates Boston College Gaffe

[skywire]

The fact that one must interpret the whole sentence and not simply discard the part after the semicolon goes without saying. If you imagine that I am guilty of that, your are mistaken. You yourself seem to imagine that rather than parsing the sentence, you can pluck out key phrases and construct an imaginary sentence that differs from the one in question.The sentence as a whole does a couple of things. First, it says that having a wireless router in your dorm room IS copyright infringement. Then it uses a semicolon to set off what ought to be a subsidiary sentence explaining why the first is true. Yet having a wireless router simply is NOT copyright infringement, and the fact that someone else MIGHT use one's wireless router to commit infringement does not make the first part true. In other words, the intent of the sentence as a whole is to say that the fact that someone might use your wireless router to commit infringement makes your possession of the router infringement. If you want to defend that, you are going to have to go beyond grammar into some kind of theory of negligent contribution to infringement. But you did not go there. Even if you had, the fact that the first part of the sentence addressed merely possessing a wireless router, not possessing an open wireless router, would make that a stretch. You need to listen to your own sermon and parse the sentence rather than scanning for keywords, already.

Re:Sorry, but the summary is inaccurate

[bws111]

Where does it say the student will be a greater risk of liability? The screen shot says 'others may share illegal material through your router giving the appearance that you are the guilty party'. This is 100% true. If you get to the point where you have to use an open router as a defense it is because it did, in fact, appear that you were the guilty party, and you are now going through the expense and hassle of defending yourself in court. If you didn't have the open wifi you wouldn't BE in court defending yourself (unless you were the one doing the sharing). Advising anyone that running an open wifi in any way reduces their liability is just plain stupid.

Re:Sorry, but the summary is inaccurate

[omnichad]

If you ARE the infringer, you could buy an open wireless router to help you cast some reasonable doubt...

Altruism considered harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the sort of mentality that makes Richard Stallman turn in his grave, and he isn't even dead!

The desire to help your neighbour is a virtue, not a vice. Start thinking about the problematic aspect of file-sharing being not users' 'piracy' but the War on Sharing, in which greedy industries interfere ever more insidiously with people's natural desire to share things with those around them, including in this case network access.

I admire people who make a deliberate point of leaving their routers open, and am only stopped from doing so myself by the fear that I'll be extorted out of money by lawyers I don't have the resources to fight, for things I haven't done and which may not be unethical anyway.

Not only Boston College

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not that unusual, my school, (University of Nevada, Reno) did something similar; when my wireless router was detected on network they sent a snail-mail letter to my parents informing them that I am 'hacking'.

Re:Not only Boston College

[tophermeyer]

when my wireless router was detected on network they sent a snail-mail letter to my parents informing them that I am 'hacking'.

Awesome.

My school decided there was a problem with people drinking in their dorm rooms. Instead of addressing it with the students, they sent letters to parents informing them that the school was not responsible for any alcohol related damage or injuries caused by the student and that their preferred method of mending the damage was to file a claim with the parents homeowner's insurer.

Getting the parents freaked out is usually a great way to get (most) college students to stop doing whatever it is they are doing.

Re:really?

[JockTroll]

people need to stand up and SHOOT these jerks in the face.

FTFY.

Re:WAPs in dorms

[Entropius]

The problem with campus-provided wifi is that, too often, it sucks dick.

If you swallow a horse, you can swallow a fly

[Catbeller]

Once the idea of intellectual "property" is accepted, and the idea that Prohibition 3: The Final Chapter is the solution to the "crime" of "stealing" non-existent objects (along with the completely locked down police state to enforce it), then what's the big deal about making up thousands more little lies to bolster the idiocy? We gave up the right to intellectual honesty once we gave in on the big lies. Prepare for a century of madness and armored police kicking your door in, shooting your dogs, and feeling up your womenfolk after they handcuff your prostrate household. We accept the madness for our drug war, we will accept it for the new war against idea thieves.

When does the possession of a song in your head become a crime? Not an idle notion. fMRI will continue evolving, and sensing a pilfered tune in your grey matter may become possible. What's next, filters on the auditory nerves? Licenses for holding x number of songs in your head for y number of years? Why not? Stealing is stealing.

More troubling

[tchdab1]

It's discomforting to note that in the intro to this article, using file sharing programs and exchanging MP3's are casually referred to as activities that indicate copyright infringement. These actions are not in any way copyright violations.

Let's not allow the Copyright-holding criminals to define computer culture and misrepresent useful and lawful activity as criminal.

Why Doesn't BC have WiFi in Dorms?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Seriously, this is 2011. WiFi in dorms was standard by the middle of last decade. Heck, I just installed a mesh in an on-campus residence last week (new building). It cost about $1500 to cover a 26-bedroom facility, including the managed gigabit PoE switch.

Gimme a shout, BC, I'm about two hours away.

Academics

[Stargoat]

Academic luddites (read non-IT people), much like corporate luddites, will do what other people tell them to in regards to pretty much everything technology.

In this case, there is a very good chance that the MPAA or RIAA or some other anti-freedom group gave Boston a list of signs of illegal downloading among college students. Wireless routers would be at or near the top of this list. Why? Anything that supports networking obviously also supporting pirating songs.

It's like the Java Bear hoax e-mail. If an official looking organization or person or e-mail tells luddities to do something with technology, they do it.

Thanks, BC!

[deweyhewson]

Let's see...check, check, check, check, check!

Thanks, Boston College, for making sure I didn't miss anything!

Router MAC addresses

[sabt-pestnu]

Just to make the record complete, MAC addresses not only can be spoofed, there have been cases of duplicates happening in the wild.

And this is while we're still talking about physical NICs. Start in on VM "hardware" and the thought of universally unique MAC can be ashcanned instantly.

Re:Router MAC addresses

[RapmasterT]

Just to make the record complete, MAC addresses not only can be spoofed, there have been cases of duplicates happening in the wild.

cases? Dell knowingly shipped untold numbers of enterprise class SERVERS into the market with duplicate MAC addresses. Caused my company a shitload of problems.

It is East Coast

[the_hellspawn]

Anyone, from the Midwest around the globe going west and stopping in the Azores know that the East Coast is garbage. Uneducated garbage that just floats around thinking they are poop and they aren't. The poop is LA folks. They are floaters that smell up the entire world with the pungent scent of poop. Chicago are sinkers like the concrete shoes on all those politicians. Enough of my flame. Didn't read the article and seeing that it was an East Coast school only furthers my point that all who live on the East Coast of the U.S. are retarded garbage. Thank you.

Re:new even older new bible; christianity shrugs

[beschra]

What a strange person.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Tarlus]

Yes, just using a wireless router. Not using it for anything. But just using such a router is considered a sign of infringement.

That (mis)use of words hurts me inside.

Already Removed

[Compulawyer]

The BC web page has already been modified to remove the entry about wireless routers. Another form of Slashdot effect?

Communist!

[formfeed]

Reading your comment, I noticed words like "social", "share", "friends", and -even worse- "helping" and "thoughts".

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?
Are you now or have you ever been enrolled at a "liberal" arts institution?
Can you name persons who influenced your thoughts or might harbor similar ideas?

Text that was deleted

[tony_allan]

The text that Boston College ITS Training and Communications removed on March 30 was: "Using a wireless router in your room; others may share illegal material through your router, giving the appearance that you are the guilty party."

Re:Not false...

[skywire]

The Boston College web page said nothing resembling "you might be a copyright infringer if...". It included "using a wireless router in your dorm room" in a list of "Common Examples of Copyright Infringement".