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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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

[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

[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?

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.