Wireless negligence can lead to unhappy-making events
Headlines on MSNBC.com today:
The article describes how law-enforcement agents burst into the home of a man who had not encrypted his wireless router's signal. They accused him of being a pedophile. As it turns out, someone else was using his network to download child pornography. That person was eventually found and charged.
That's all well and good. I'm glad they found the real culprit. However, the man who didn't protect his wireless network, in my opinion, is an accessory to the crime. He enabled the pedophile by providing free access to the Internet.
The article goes on to say that he didn't encrypt his wireless signal because he got frustrated trying to set up security. SO WHAT? He should have called the router's manufacturer and gotten help. He could have returned the router and gotten a different one. He could have called a professional to get it set up properly.
He didn't, because he got frustrated, and (I'm making this part up, but most people I know would have done this) he didn't want to spend more time fixing the problem.
It is a basic truism that anyone can subscribe to broadband access in their homes these days. 90+% of homes in the U.S. have that capability and 77.3% take advantage of it. If you were someone who plans to use Internet access for illegal activities, would YOU use your own service for that purpose?
Not if you have any brains at all. I know I'd use someone else's access, not my own.
It is acceptable in the U.S. today for people to not take responsibility when they enable others:
"Gee, Comcast should have told me to protect my Internet access." or,
"Netgear is responsible for my neighbor accessing my network. They didn't secure my network out of the box and didn't make it clear that I should encrypt my transmissions to prevent nefarious people from using my network.", or
"McDonald's is responsible for the burns on my body because they didn't tell me the coffee was hot."
GIVE ME A BREAK!!
When you buy a wireless router, YOU are responsible for setting up the router's security system to make it as hard as possible for others to use your network. It isn't Netgear's, or Cisco's, or Best Buy's, or Staples' responsibility to tell you to do that.
YOU bought the equipment.
YOU read the newspapers, or online news sites and watch news on TV. It's nearly impossible for you not to know that these things can happen.
YOU are responsible for reading the instructions provided with the device.
YOU can hire me, or someone like me to take care of it for you, or YOU can call the manufacturer of the router and get help setting it up. YOU. YOU. YOU.
Not someone else.
I would hope that, at some point, the legal system will figure this out and charge people as an accessory in crimes committed because they enabled the criminal. They're starting to do that when children die because parents refuse to give them proper medical care due to religious beliefs.
The lady who burned herself on McDonald's coffee should have been laughed out of court by the legal system, but, in the U.S., we don't want to accept responsibility for our own actions, so she got a settlement and McDonald's has to label their cups so people will know the coffee is hot. Assuming, of course, they read the cups.
All these years after that court case was finalized, I still need someone to explain to me how a woman who would have complained if the coffee WASN'T hot got money because the coffee WAS hot.
Setting up wireless security can sometimes be difficult when it should be easy. Implementation of technology has a way of wasting our time sometimes, but that's no excuse. If you don't want to spend time calling the manufacturer, call me. Call Hal Hubschman. Call someone that you pay for service (not the kid next door - he isn't a professional) to get the job done, and get a receipt saying they did the work. At least you'll have covered your ass so someone else really IS responsible.
Just in case the FBI breaks down your door.
My next post will be a general tutorial explaining what should be done to properly secure your network.
Bizarre pornography raid underscores Wi-Fi privacy risks
The article describes how law-enforcement agents burst into the home of a man who had not encrypted his wireless router's signal. They accused him of being a pedophile. As it turns out, someone else was using his network to download child pornography. That person was eventually found and charged.
That's all well and good. I'm glad they found the real culprit. However, the man who didn't protect his wireless network, in my opinion, is an accessory to the crime. He enabled the pedophile by providing free access to the Internet.
The article goes on to say that he didn't encrypt his wireless signal because he got frustrated trying to set up security. SO WHAT? He should have called the router's manufacturer and gotten help. He could have returned the router and gotten a different one. He could have called a professional to get it set up properly.
He didn't, because he got frustrated, and (I'm making this part up, but most people I know would have done this) he didn't want to spend more time fixing the problem.
It is a basic truism that anyone can subscribe to broadband access in their homes these days. 90+% of homes in the U.S. have that capability and 77.3% take advantage of it. If you were someone who plans to use Internet access for illegal activities, would YOU use your own service for that purpose?
Not if you have any brains at all. I know I'd use someone else's access, not my own.
It is acceptable in the U.S. today for people to not take responsibility when they enable others:
"Gee, Comcast should have told me to protect my Internet access." or,
"Netgear is responsible for my neighbor accessing my network. They didn't secure my network out of the box and didn't make it clear that I should encrypt my transmissions to prevent nefarious people from using my network.", or
"McDonald's is responsible for the burns on my body because they didn't tell me the coffee was hot."
GIVE ME A BREAK!!
When you buy a wireless router, YOU are responsible for setting up the router's security system to make it as hard as possible for others to use your network. It isn't Netgear's, or Cisco's, or Best Buy's, or Staples' responsibility to tell you to do that.
YOU bought the equipment.
YOU read the newspapers, or online news sites and watch news on TV. It's nearly impossible for you not to know that these things can happen.
YOU are responsible for reading the instructions provided with the device.
YOU can hire me, or someone like me to take care of it for you, or YOU can call the manufacturer of the router and get help setting it up. YOU. YOU. YOU.
Not someone else.
I would hope that, at some point, the legal system will figure this out and charge people as an accessory in crimes committed because they enabled the criminal. They're starting to do that when children die because parents refuse to give them proper medical care due to religious beliefs.
The lady who burned herself on McDonald's coffee should have been laughed out of court by the legal system, but, in the U.S., we don't want to accept responsibility for our own actions, so she got a settlement and McDonald's has to label their cups so people will know the coffee is hot. Assuming, of course, they read the cups.
All these years after that court case was finalized, I still need someone to explain to me how a woman who would have complained if the coffee WASN'T hot got money because the coffee WAS hot.
Setting up wireless security can sometimes be difficult when it should be easy. Implementation of technology has a way of wasting our time sometimes, but that's no excuse. If you don't want to spend time calling the manufacturer, call me. Call Hal Hubschman. Call someone that you pay for service (not the kid next door - he isn't a professional) to get the job done, and get a receipt saying they did the work. At least you'll have covered your ass so someone else really IS responsible.
Just in case the FBI breaks down your door.
My next post will be a general tutorial explaining what should be done to properly secure your network.
Posted by Sid Plait at 4/25/2011 6:48 AM 
Categories: Big Mistakes, Bully Pulpit, Networking, All, Internet, In My Opinion, PC Security, Computers, Critical thinking, Identity Theft, Wireless Networks, Technology
Tags: Liability wireless security free Internet access FBI law enforcement wireless routers Netgear Cisco DLink Buffalo Hawking individual responsibility Hal Hubschman Rant
Categories: Big Mistakes, Bully Pulpit, Networking, All, Internet, In My Opinion, PC Security, Computers, Critical thinking, Identity Theft, Wireless Networks, Technology
Tags: Liability wireless security free Internet access FBI law enforcement wireless routers Netgear Cisco DLink Buffalo Hawking individual responsibility Hal Hubschman Rant
Something I didn't mention in the post is that the article mentions that some people LIKE to share their Internet access with others to (sort of) pay-forward THEIR use of someone else's access before THEY started paying for it.
Those people are just asking for trouble.
Using someone else's Internet access is a form of stealing. I know the article said that law enforcement is not certain there is anything illegal about using someone else's access.
If it is done without the knowledge of the person paying for the service and the provider doesn't know, you are stealing bandwidth from the legal subscriber and revenue (as well as bandwidth) from the provider.
Just because the wireless user didn't protect their network does not make it right for you to use their service.
IT'S STEALING!!
Reply to this
I just heard from a friend (and I looked the first part of this up to be certain) who told me that in Canada, it is illegal to have an open wireless network. what I don't know is whether or not there are licensed open Hot Spots.
According to Wikipedia -
"In Canadian law, unauthorized access is addressed by Section 342.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. According to Section 342.1, "Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right" obtains "computer services" from an access point is subject to criminal charges. (See Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 342.1 (1) (a))
Section 326 may also be used to address unauthorized access of a computer network. '(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right', '(b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.'"
My friend also said that the U.S. is trying to update federal rulings on unauthorized wireless access. It appears that federal laws and laws in every state exist, but some of the wording is ambiguous.
It will be very interesting to see what happens here.
Reply to this