EFF Advocates Leaving Wireless Routers Open

SD-Arcadia writes "We will need a political and technological 'Open Wireless Movement' to reverse the degradation of this indispensable component of the Internet's infrastructure. Part of the task will simply be reminding people that opening their WiFi is the socially responsible thing to do, and explaining that individuals who choose to do so can enjoy the same legal protections against liability as any other Internet access provider."

Comments

Same legal protections?

[mfnickster]

Yeah, I'll really enjoy making that assertion before a judge, *after* my door has been kicked in and my gear confiscated!

Re:Same legal protections?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you wonder why your rights get chipped away at, piece by piece.

Re:Same legal protections?

[spikenerd]

Mod parent A/C up. This whole discussion is chock-full of people whining about how standing up for rights *might* cost them something. Of course it might cost you something--we're talking about freedom here! Come on, people, have the self-respect to sacrifice one-tenth of what your ancestors sacrificed so that you could have freedom.

Re:Same legal protections?

[NeverVotedBush]

Even without the potential legal liability of having attacks, threatening e-mails, or child pornography traced to my router if I left it wide open to anyone who wanted to use it, why should I allow others to sap my bandwidth or help take my ISP into data caps?

I pay for my internet service and my neighbors can do the same for theirs.

I speak from experience. I allowed my next door neighbor to piggyback for "just e-mail and some web surfing". They seemed to be low on money so I helped them out.

Then their house sprouts an HD satellite antenna and I notice my own Netflix streaming stuttering. It turns out they had gotten a DVR/DirecTV setup and were doing their own streaming. I blocked DirecTV and next thing I get is them asking me to help them fix their connection because their X-Box wouldn't connect and they wanted me to enable specific ports. Their X-Box would connect and it turned out the ports were what the DirecTV service rep had told them to make sure were open.

They decided they wanted more bandwidth and were lying to me to get it. It pissed me off. I then configured QOS to limit their data rate to just what the X-Box needed to play online. They finally decided to pay for their own connection.

It's just a pain in the butt and a liability to open up a wireless connection to anyone who wants on. I realize my story isn't exactly what this thread is about but it isn't far away. Leave your router open and people will just start soaking up bandwidth. With all of the streaming services out there, data rate increases are inevitable. It's easier to just not ever get on that merry go round and lock down your router.

Besides, liability is far lower. Anonymous users have no accountability.

Re:Same legal protections?

[nedlohs]

There are millions of open wifi connections, there's been 1 (ok maybe there's been a couple of others) no-knock raids. That hardly seems to make one inevitable.

Re:Same legal protections?

[nedlohs]

if everybody left their wifi open then they wouldn't make that assumption.

Re:Same legal protections?

[clang_jangle]

Just be persistent in posting with your old account and in a few weeks you'll see the karma change.

Re:Same legal protections?

[elrous0]

Reminds me of a war movie I saw once where a guy makes a really stirring speech about sacrifice, god, country, etc. When the time comes for the big battle charge, the men all tell him that he's been chosen to lead it. As he charges across the field, he's immediately killed. The men behind him take cover instead of following. One of them looks at another one and says "Damn, he was brave!" and the other replies "Yeah, and dead too."

Re:Same legal protections?

[Local ID10T]

I tried leaving my wifi open for awhile, but other people using it would slow my connection down...

Many modern routers support a "guest connection" with a separate SSID and allow limiting the bandwidth available to the guest(s). You can offer an open wifi connection without compromising your bandwidth beyond what you are comfortable with.

Re:Same legal protections?

[Oligonicella]

Don't conflate 'the public' with 'the criminals' you've written about.

Re:Same legal protections?

[geekoid]

Criminals is not 'the public' and meth is just a poor excuse to give the police free reign.

Hey guess what? the large majority of people who the police enter there homes could be grabbed at work. Or on the street.
Instead they kick in the door, point guns at every one, don't give people time to think, and shoot dogs and threaten 3 year old kids. FSM help you if you are woken up a 3 am, not completely aware of who is storming your house and reach for a gun so you can protect your family.

Sorry, but if its 'people have meth' or 'people get violated in the middle of the night' I'll choose people can have meth.

Re:Same legal protections?

[Man On Pink Corner]

There is no such thing as a calm interaction with the police today. Around 50 police officers are shot every year just at traffic stops, and most of those are where they did not take immediate control of the situation - basically, they ignored their training. How would you expect them to deal with a public that wants to kill them?

Ah, that old schtick. The truth is that in the US, police work doesn't even make the top 10 most dangerous professions.

It may not be an easy job, but it is also not a particularly hazardous one.

Re:Same legal protections?

[increment1]

Under the current law, you are not responsible for illegal uses of your shared connection if you were unaware of said uses and did not filter the access / use (this is the common carrier protection). I am not a lawyer, so do not take that as legal advice, but this describes a reasonable interpretation of the law.

In regards to your analogy, a different standard is generally applied to physical uses of your property, especially when it comes to drug offences. However, if you can genuinely show that you did not know what was going on, and could not reasonably have known, you would probably not be found complicit (but your task would be much much harder).

Re:Same legal protections?

[smelch]

Wow, you're a selfish prick. You don't have to share your network if you don't want to, but being allowed to share your wireless is important and there is a lot of talk about not doing it or suffering legal consequences. Some people might like the idea of sharing their connection with the neighbors if they don't saturate their pipe and the neighbors don't have their own connection. Sounds like you're so caught up on what you have that you can't even think for a second about people who aren't total dickwads.

Re:Same legal protections?

[digitalsolo]

I have no issue with police punishing me for what I've done wrong.

I have major issues with the police not abiding by the same laws that they enforce for the public. From simple traffic laws (the most obvious) to drug trafficking, we have MAJOR issues with the police in the area I live in, and in my experience, throughout the country.

Re:Same legal protections?

[profplump]

There really is no need for a "legal test case" because there is no legal problem -- all sorts of businesses already offer free WiFi, and no one holds them liable for use by their customers or passersby.

The problem is the police are deciding that raids are a reasonable way to serve search and/or arrest warrants. And since the police don't raid Starbucks there's no reason to think they would raid EFF hotspots either. Instead they'll serve the search warrant in a reasonable way, in an attempt to collect the evidence they need to prosecute a crime. Just like they should do for individuals.

Safe harbor prov? Sorry, only if you're a big corp

[The O Rly Factor]

Tell all of this to the guy who had his door kicked down and assault rifles put to his head after a wardriver used his open access point for distributing child porn.

Oh hell no.

[Yaddoshi]

Maybe if Communism actually worked I'd consider doing something like this.

Re:Oh hell no.

[ackthpt]

Maybe if Communism actually worked I'd consider doing something like this.

It is my personal observation that Communism works well in a small group, like a tribe. More than a few hundred people and you need a tyrant.

Re:Oh hell no.

[Thruen]

Communism in it's purest form would work, the problem is we always have to involve people, and as we've all seen only people who will abuse power and use it strictly to benefit themselves ever have the drive to take a position of power. This is also why democracies, republics, monarchies, dictatorships, and every other form of government fail to adequately govern people; even when they start off well, bad people will inevitably take control and turn it into something terrible. No form of government, or lack there of as in anarchy, is inherently evil. It's people that are evil.

Security implications

[wiggys]

This obviously has benefits to society but comes at the cost of making your home network less secure - most routers don't separate the internet side of things from the home network side of things, so it's similar to allowing a person to connect their PC to your LAN socket. Any machines on your network are now visible to an attacker.

Re:Security implications

[chispito]

This obviously has benefits to society but comes at the cost of making your home network less secure - most routers don't separate the internet side of things from the home network side of things, so it's similar to allowing a person to connect their PC to your LAN socket. Any machines on your network are now visible to an attacker.

Many newer routers support guest SSIDs that can have separate security settings, and are isolated from, your main SSID. My new Netgear router does this. What it doesn't do, unfortunately, is let me throttle the guest SSID.

Re:Safe harbor prov? Sorry, only if you're a big c

[Joce640k]

A few more cases like that and we might get some laws changed...

One Fine Day In Sacramento

[ackthpt]

"Notice all the vehicles outside, parked up and down the street?"

"Yeah, bunch of leeches."

"How can you say that? They're taking advantage of a basic freedom, exercising their rights, lest the government usurp them!"

"Have you looked at the plates on the cars and vans?"

"Uh, no. What's special about them?"

"Exempt. Almost all of them. They're using your connection due to cutbacks - they are the government."

An interesting idea, but...

[VGPowerlord]

Most of us have had the experience of tremendous inconvenience because of a lack of Internet access. Being lost in a strange place with no way to find a map; having an urgent email to send with no way to do so; trying to meet a friend with no way to contact them.

A wise man once said "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Re:Safe harbor prov? Sorry, only if you're a big c

[Moryath]

Yeah, it'll become fucking illegal to have open wireless access points anywhere.

After all, if you have yours open, you are "obviously" intending to aid child pornographers. Or terrorists. Or democrats. Or something.

Re:Or you could just pay for your own services

[surgen]

I do pay for my own services. And if my neighbor is too cheap to pay for theirs, I don't care. Let them have at it.

Whats all this talk of 'leeching'? Who really cares? I don't need to hoard the portion of my monthly bandwidth allotment that I never use. If I've got it, someone should be using it.

Re:No Thanks, EFF

[walshy007]

And let's face it: the EFF has constantly sided with pirates on issue after issue. I suspect this is the EFF's way of helping pirates by frustrating any enforcement of copyright.

Your view of the EFF is rather twisted, they espouse freedom to do as you wish electronically without copyright infringement or the like, why should everyone else suffer because the pirates find these freedoms useful at times?

I can in all honesty say I have never pirated a single piece of software (helps I mainly use OSS of course) and yet I strongly agree with most of what the EFF say with many topics.

I have at times kept a separate access point dedicated for the purpose open for people to gain access to the internet (limited by QoS so it stays sane) passers by are free to use it as they wish. If others did the same then when I am visiting their area I could use their wifi as well. How is this a bad thing. Wifi is far more convenient than mobile internet access when available. So long as you keep security controls in place in case malicious people try to connect I see no harm in providing a useful service to your fellow man which costs you nothing.

Re:Safe harbor prov? Sorry, only if you're a big c

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is how those stories will be reported. Instead of "Innocent man has door broken down for leaving wifi open," it will be "Child pornographer shot dead, one police officer injured." The laws favor law enforcement when executing a no-knock warrant, and the media presumes guilt. Imagine how hard it will be to hear them yell "Police" when they have just set off a 180db flashbang in your house, or how hard it will be to see their badges when they have a tactical light in your eyes.

And for the record, I have a gun next to my bed at night.

ISPs have been trying to scare people for years

[billstewart]

The push to eliminate guest wireless has largely come from ISPs, especially the cable companies, who don't want people sharing bandwidth with their neighbors instead of everybody buying their own connection. A few ISPs, such as Sonic and Speakeasy, actually encourage sharing and roaming, but the companies like Comcast that also are pushing bandwidth caps have been the main propagandists against sharing wireless, and they're also the people who didn't want you running a web server from home when the broadband business was getting started.

On the other hand, sometimes there are actual problems. Back when I was running open wireless, I once got a call from my ISP saying they'd blocked half a million spams from my address overnight, and could I check that my computer wasn't infected? The computer was fine, but my neighbor's laptop had gotten infected and was blasting away over my wifi. Eventually when I upgraded to wireless-N I turned on encryption; unfortunately the wifi standards don't give you an easy way to have open access and encrypted connections, and I'd rather have the privacy.

Re:ISPs have been trying to scare people for years

[element-o.p.]

ISP's don't give two shits what you do with your bandwidth, as it's not a server.

Uh, yeah they do care, because they are overselling it to an absurd degree. Anything you do that makes it more likely that you are actually using the bandwidth that you purchased puts stress on their network. One of the major providers where I live is trying to build a system by which they can bill by usage, rather than by max download speed just to get around this problem. Keep in mind, most ISPs are loss-leaders for the more profitable services in a telco or cable company. The ISP typically loses money every month on Internet accounts, but since it is part of a bundled service, the parent company makes up the difference in residential, long-distance, and/or cellular telephone services; or cable TV, PPV, VoD, etc. Consequently, they have incentive not to build a better network than they have to, and the more you use that network, the fatter the pipes they have to build.

Furthermore, some ISPs have in their AUPs a provision that says you can't run a server on anything but a business account (since business accounts are typically quite a bit more expensive than residential accounts). The other major provider in my area, for whom I used to work as a sys admin, was such an ISP. While most of the ISP admins didn't really care, the provision was in our policies, and I was aware of a couple of instances where we terminated peoples' accounts for reselling services off of residential Internet accounts. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see an ISP interpret sharing an open WiFi access point as "reselling" a service (i.e., payment is in goodwill and/or karma rather than cash).

Ok, hippies, enough is enough

[Loosifur]

I just RTFA to make sure I'm getting this correct, because I normally am fully in support of "damn the man" stuff like this, but this is just ludicrous. There has never been a time in my life where I have needed to "urgently" check my email and been unable to, nor has there ever been a time where the only thing standing between me dying of thirst and reaching a nearby oasis has been my ability to access Google Maps on a laptop. In fact, I would like to go so far as to say that if you are the kind of person who ever "urgently" needs to check your email, consider: a.) purchasing a cellphone and distributing that number to whoever might need to get in touch with you, b.) purchasing a smartphone so you can check your email without a WiFi connection, and/or c.) checking your email before you leave for a four-week safari. Who is this demographic that can afford a laptop and conducts vital business via the Interwebs, but can't afford a data plan?

I know that people around here get fussy about car analogies, so...

This is like asking me to buy a horse, and leave the horse saddled in my front yard just in case anyone needs to use it to go somewhere. And then just trusting that no one is going to hop on the horse, rob a stagecoach, and then drop the horse back in my yard for the posse to find.

At a certain point, personal responsibility has to enter into all of this. Of course someone shouldn't be liable for nasty things accomplished using a WiFi connection if they made an honest effort to secure it, or just didn't know that that was something one ought to do. But if they intentionally leave it open for anyone to use, they should accept some of the blame when someone uses it to do something naughty.

And furthermore, it's WiFi, not clean drinking water. Since when is leveling your paladin a vital civil liberty? What's next, should I set up an HD projection system on the side of my house so that people outside aren't suppressed by the tyranny of Netflix requiring a subscription? Because Ironman 2 is one of those bits of information that "wants to be free"?

bad press

[poptones]

They don't go after people who "download" it. Just the other day there was a story on here about someone arrested for "downloading" KP. It also mentioned in the same article the story of another who was arrested for "downloading" Millions of images from a boat using a cantenna several blocks away from the WAP.

But if you actually read the SOURCE articles for that, the truth comes out: the one who "downloaded Millions" did NOT "download" but UPLOAD. And it wasn't Millions that were UPLOADED (for, obviously, that would take many many hours and this was alleged to have happened in one very late night) but MILLIONS of images that were found on the guy's PC when he was raided.

This seems to be a deliberate confusion of the truth. "Upload" is consistently confused with "download" in articles like this so the reader is led to believe if you even download something from the internet big brother doesn't like then the MIB will come knock down your door and drag you to hades. Of course this is in the interests of the MEDIA OWNERS who publish this nonsense, because the more fear of the internet they can generate the more likely people are to be good little sheep who only use their connections as an extension of their TV sets, thus ensuring even more monthly income for the big media giants who own shit like hulu and who profit from others like netflix.

The witch hunt won't end until the last big media conglomerate lies dead in its grave. This is why I don't have cable, I don't go to movies, I don't subscribe to magazines, and I don't "rent." Ayup, I watch what the fuck I want to watch, and listen to what the fuck I wanna listen to. Sorry Alice, I know you own your work but I've bought enough copies of Billion Dollar Babies in my life from people who show absolutely no respect for the rights of the people of the society from which they profit.

Do the exact opposite, please

[boarder]

For years we've been trying really hard to get everyone to close down their open WiFi spots to prevent hacking/leeching/malicious activity/etc. Now they want us to do the opposite? I'm sorry, while I don't think a person should be held liable for the child porn their neighbor downloaded using their open WiFi, I also don't think we should be telling them to just ignore security. We have botnets precisely because people ignore security.

They are paying for a service and shouldn't be told to let others use it for free. Why wouldn't they then just cancel their service and use someone else's for free? They shouldn't have to open their computer up to being hacked (or do you want to explain to them how to beef up their security after telling them to lower their security?) just so someone can get free service. They shouldn't have to worry about bandwidth caps just so their neighbor can stream netflix for free.

They SHOULD be hassled if something goes wrong on their open network as a lesson to secure their system.

Hell, I turn off both my router and my cable "modem" when I'm not using them.