Is the Average WiFi user stoopid?
It's hard to tell. But frankly, there are waaay too many unsecured wifi networks out there. And then when I see a post like this one, followed up by assinine comments like (in response to being considered a primary suspect if someone uses your unsecured network to upload kiddie porn) :
I thought people in the U.S. were presumed innocent until proven guilty? If I have open Wi-Fi and claim that my connection was stolen for illegal activity, shouldn't it be on the prosecutor's back to actively pursue undeniable proof that it was my machine? Why should I have to come up with proof that I didn't do it? How are you supposed to prove something like that? [Comment #8]
I'm forced to STOP what I'm working on, and then have to RANT about people's stupidity.
Prosecutors get paid to... prosecute. Do you REALLY want to have to:
a) get arrested.
b) have your arrest published in the local paper for your grandma?
c) tell your boss that you can't come to work cuz i) you're in jail, ii) need to go to court
d) take a chance that you somehow won't become an unfortunate statistic of the legal system?
Of course, you COULD log all activity on your WiFi router, and then somehow back it up, just to be able to prove that it wasn't YOU that uploaded the kiddie porn, but how much effort is involved in that? I'd say... get off your arse, use your wrist/hand, click the mouse oh... about 10 times, enter a pass phrase, and you're now secure. LOTS easier than keeping around 'proof' that you're just a good guy that wants to provide miscreants (and friends) with free internet service.
Hrrrmmphhfff.
Not to mention that generally, this is CIVIL law and the presumption of innocence applies to CRIMINAL law. (Kiddie porn is a bit different, obviously, but these people are generally referring to copyright infringement and other civil matters.) This kind of stuff bothers me because some people have this modicum of legal knowledge and are now suddenly waging a legal holywar because they saw an episode of The People's Court.
While I agree that technology may be difficult to keep up with, there's the old saying, "ignorance of the law is not an excuse." Go spit out your chewing gum in the streets of Singapore and see how much sympathy you get. Plausible deniability only goes so far ... I think there's a reasonable expectation that people educate themselves and take at least some precautions to avoid being put in these situations to begin with.
Posted by: Brian | March 22, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Well the problem is that what you're suggesting assumes technical sophistication on the part of everyone owning a router. It's not the lazy techie who doesn't secure his network that needs the legal consideration, it's my neighbor who's vocation is working on cars, not computers. Who bought his router at Best Buy, plugged it in and doesn't even know enough to know he should lock it down. Then he gets arrested because my other neighbor hijacks it to upload kiddie porn. I agree with the dude you quote, that's freaking stupid.
Posted by: Carson | March 22, 2006 at 11:19 AM
I hear ya, but, does your car's owner's manual tell you to lock your car to prevent theft? (OK, dumb analogy that can be taken too far.)
If the non-technical buyers can't be expected to secure their network, then it should come that way by default. (There's a big banner down the hall from me: Secure by Default. Maybe it wasn't the norm 5 years ago, but it has to be today.) The fact is, if all authorities have to go on is an IP that links to your router, then that's where they'll start investigating.
On another note: Carson, you need new neighbors.
Posted by: Brian | March 22, 2006 at 12:16 PM