Leaving Wi-Fi Connections 'Open' Can Be Costly
 

gideon rejoice

Full Story

Torture lol.

I only download from starbucks:winkwink:

don't count on this type of precedent standing for too long

the eff has already started to take cases to stop this shit.

the copyright act doesn't have neglect clause in it

and the normal process is to define actual damages for the action caused by the neglect

since bit torrent never gives away a complete copy the only damage is the 1 lost sale from the download.

dipshit .... ^^^ ......

the defense is soddi, which is pretty much the "two black youths" of the internet era. it doesnt stand up to the stink test. basically, let someone else run up a million dollars of long distance charges on your home phone, and then try to get out of that too. good freaking luck. plus these are civil suits, no beyond a reasonable doubt required here, just a preponderance of evidence. the soddi defence is a failure.

Although I lived in America for 7 and a bit years, I cant really rember the wi-fi process...

I'm guessing it must be different to the UK?

Over here, you get a 'hub' supplied that pumps out the wi-fi. Each hub has a code on the back of it... Mine for example is h82aG61bejs7

Now without that code, you cant log into the wifi... So unless you are actually in the house, with physical access to hub, and the code, you are automatically secure ?

Like I say, is a different system there, or am I being naive?

Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference.

*knock knock*
87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees"
"hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest"

But the part I left out, is that in the UK, we need to stick our cocks in the back of the 'HUB' as a digital 'spunkerprint' before we download porn illegally...

wow his lawyer sucked.

As much as this case seems WRONG to charge someone 10k for having an open network

As much as it is possible to hack most wifi networks

Wouldn't it be nice if piracy really did fade back into the shadows? :)

wonder what justification would be used to waterboard an 87 year old woman

I heard it,thats crazy:(

Sue Starbucks too!

As the legal theory here goes, the difference between leaving your router wide open and having it hacked is that if you password protect your router, that is an example of taking "reasonable care," whereas leaving it wide open is not.

If you password protect your router, the hacker has to engage in an overtly illegal act just in order to access the wifi; as such, there's no way a court is going to say you were negligent in that scenario.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with theory of negligence being proposed here, just that under that theory, there's a big (and likely dispositive) difference between an entirely unsecured router and one that has been password protected and has to be compromised in order for illegal use of it by third parties to take place.

the big problem is if you secure your WiFi then the lawyers argue that you must have done it because your WiFi was secure and you have to prove that it was hacked to get "away" with it.

The fundamental problem with the argument is that leaving your keys in your car is not the DEFAULT configuration, your car is sold to you without the keys in the ignition

you have to choose to change it from that default position when you negligently leave your keys in the ignition .

WiFi is set-up by default to be open, it not designed to be secure out of the box, hell most people will not even set-up a secure WiFi properly (use dictionary words instead of mixing in case and special characters)

Be a waste of time anyway she wouldn't remember the answer to whatever you wanted to ask.