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

[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

[yoghurt]

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

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.

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

[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.