Security Basics mailing list archives

RE: Wireless Security


From: "David Gillett" <gillettdavid () fhda edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:47:13 -0700

The same is true with a wireless connection. If you 
explicitly give someone permission to use the wireless 
connection, and then they use it for nefarious purposes, 
then you could be held liable.

On this one too, I'd have to think that we'll have to 
again, disagree.  That's like saying that someone who 
has say an account with NetZero and they d/l "tons" of 
kiddie porn.  Does that make NetZero "guilty" as well???  
I don't think so, and I think that their lawyers would 
agree with me.  Or that'd be like saying just because 
the criminals use the roads conduct their illegal 
activities that those who built the roads are also
somehow "guilty" because of it.

NetZero and similar services have indemnity clauses that 
you sign/agree to before using the service to protect it 
from EXACTLY what you mentioned.

Granted, I'm no lawyer either, but I always thought that an 
absence to agree was not to be taken as an agreement.

  In US law, "common carriers" (i.e. phone companies) have been
pretty much exempt from responsibility for content.  There has
been political wrangling for at least fifteen years about whether
this should extend to ISPs or not.  [One of the little-reported
provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (RIP) was that
it said that ISPs were NOT common carriers and could NEVER become
common carriers....]  Even if ISPs were granted that status, it
would not necessarily be automatically inherited by everyone who
shares their broadband connection, whether deliberately or 
negligently.

  That brings up an interesting point.  I don't think negligence
is sufficient for *criminal* consequences, but it could be the
basis of civil litigation....  Deliberate action, though, invokes
criminal terms such as "accessory".
  So a lot could hinge on trying to prove that, in setting up 
your wireless service such that it was wide open to the world,
you were merely incompetent, and not deliberately inviting random
strangers to exploit and abuse it.

David Gillett


Current thread: