Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Copyright lawsuit targets owners of non-secure wireless networks

Author
Message
zenassem
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 05:58
Link
Ok now things have really gone too far. This is completely absurd!!!

[Source]~[As posted on 2600 THQ FB page]
Quote: "A federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts could test the question of whether individuals who leave their wireless networks unsecured can be held liable if someone uses the network to illegally download copyrighted content."


Quote: "Even if the defendants did not directly download the movies, they had control over the Internet access used for copyright infringement purposes, the lawsuit noted.

"Defendants failed to adequately secure their Internet access, whether accessible only through their computer when physically connected to an Internet router or accessible to many computers by use of a wireless router," Liberty Media claimed. "Defendants' negligent actions allowed others to unlawfully copy and share Plaintiff's copyrighted Motion Picture, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and unlawfully interfering with Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the Motion Picture."


The lawsuit seeks either actual or statutory damages from each of the defendants."


Oh, Can't wait to download some movies via McDonald's Wi-Fi and see what happens when the Liberty Media sues them. Unfrick'n-believable!!!!!!

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
anayar
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 06:53
Link
Thats unbelievable... Jesus, the way things are going I think they'll even start sueing people who might have piggybacked the connection. [/b]"The defendants, defendants kids, defendants neighbors and defendants grandmother are all liable to pay statutory or actual damages..."[/b]

Cheers,
Anayar


For KeithC
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 08:43
Link
Quote: "McDonald's Wi-Fi"


McDonald's wifi while unsecured does require you to agree to their terms of use before it gives you access, which I assume is them covering themselves if people use it to download things illegally. Also McDonald's wi-fi is incredibly slow(a 512 connection with multiple people using it at any one time), good luck with downloading your movies.

I don't think this is as absurd as it sounds. People need to make sure their wifi is secure. Do I think slapping them with a copyright infringement notice is fair, no. BUT I understand the logic behind it.

http://thraxocorp.webs.com/ Visit my totally awesome website: Thraxocorp. It's my own company and I'm totes the CEO.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 13:53
Link
Sounds very absurd to me. Would it make sense for a company to sue the highways agency because thieves used the public highway to drive to a bank before robbing it?

It's the thieves who need to be punished.

Of course, if it could be proved that the owner of an unsecured network had actually encouraged thieves to use their network for illegal purposes then that would be a different matter.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 14:48
Link
i agree with GG here... valid point. its like blaming the architect for a bridge falling down instead of the firm contracted to build it to a dead line... who obviously skipped things to finish on time and get a bonus...

when will this silly Shoddywood crap end... they make crap movies these days anyway...

I have not watched a shoddywood movie in years now...

Back to top
Profile PM
xplosys
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 19:28
Link
It's more like suing the cab driver that brought the guy to the bank when he robbed it. If the cab driver didn't know his intentions, how can he be responsible?

That said, people with a lot of money make laws to suit themselves.

Brian.

!retupmoc eht ni deppart m'I !pleH

Back to top
Profile PM
bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 22:31
Link
Quote: "when will this silly Shoddywood crap end... they make crap movies these days anyway...

I have not watched a shoddywood movie in years now..."


Comment of the year so far...

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hodgey
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posted: 9th Feb 2012 22:36
Link
Quote: "I don't think this is as absurd as it sounds. People need to make sure their wifi is secure. Do I think slapping them with a copyright infringement notice is fair, no. BUT I understand the logic behind it."

My thoughts as well. Although the defendants (referring to those who owned the internet access) may not have meant for the copyright breach to happen, it can be seen that they didn't take adequate measures to secure there wifi and as a result, the breach was made. I can see the company's point of view but I don't think that the defendants should be liable for 10s of thousands of dollars, maybe a small amount. Let's hope the judge(s) make a just decision.

Quote: "That said, people with a lot of money make laws to suit themselves."

"You've heard of the golden rule haven't you? Those who have the gold make the rules" - Jafar, Aladdin. No actual video posted as I don't want to be sued.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
PAGAN_old
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jan 2006
Location: Capital of the Evil Empire
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 03:52 Edited at: 10th Feb 2012 04:21
Link
Sorry this is a slight offtop on the subject of copyright and lawsuits just got me thinking This whole copyright thing needs to be reworked as its really killing creativity in my opinion. For example, My dream is to someday finish and release a game, and in the gameworld i will have "droids" but to my surprise the word "droid" is pattented by George Lucas (i think Lucas and google even had a lawsuit over googles android which they nicknamed as abreviated "droid") So i will have to call my robot charecters "robots"(too generic and uncool sounding word) or Androids (long word and i generally dont like it) Droids in my opinion is short and cool sounding word and not used by anyone outside of starwars (now i know why...) I might have tons of ideas which i thought were something i originally thought of (or borrowed from elsewhere) that might be pattened and i might get sued for stuff i had no idea about if i ever release my game.

I might get a lot of hate for saying this (proboly not on this forum tho you guys are awesome ) One of the reasons i kinda wish i lived in Soviet Union is because USSR DID NOT have any kind of copyright laws as they were a BARRIER TO CREATIVITY and pretty much COUNTERPRODUCTIVE especially when the government invested so much money and resourses to raise several generations of engineers who are expected to steal ideas if they can improve upon it and make it better (as it turned out Ussr wasnt obsessed with making cheap duplicates of expensive things from the west and most of the industry made original designs and didnt bother copying someone elses when they could easily do so. Its because people back then did not care about money and profit, they could have by effortlessly copying a popular thing, But actually putting effort into inventing/making something good would be your key to sucess and reward). Thats why people all over the world make clones of kalashnikov rifles and other stuff of soviet origin. (i also realised why some games have replica models of russian cars while american/european cars in most videogames are obvious parodies, Older russian cars arent protected by copyrights. and finally, the soviet programmer who created the game of Tetris didnt earn a single penny from it and died a poor man while Nintendo that didnt even pay for the idea, patented it when the game was published in the west before it even had a patent. Nintendo(c) ended up making hundreds of millions from Tetris(c) which is very likley responsible for the popularity of Gameboy(c) In my opinion ideas and designs can benefit from being stolen as i have seen some really cool stuff that originated from a stolen ideas/concepts modified by a creative mind for the better.
Ironically these days everyone is trying to copy apple products (in terms of design)and i think its kinda stupid when they can easily make a better-looking original design.

N-Gage was the coolest thing i ever seen at the time and i just dont understand how something as cool as an Ngage failed but dumb uncreative clones of iphones and ipads are suceeding? (i know iphones capabilities are huge, but during early 2000s a portable gaming system that could do full 3d (non of that fake 3d flat sprite which looked like crap) Such gadget was infinitley more awesome than my gameboy advanced at the time.


dont hate people who rip you off,cheat and get away with it, learn from them
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 08:51
Link
Quote: " Although the defendants (referring to those who owned the internet access) may not have meant for the copyright breach to happen, it can be seen that they didn't take adequate measures to secure there wifi and as a result, the breach was made."


Yes. It is foreseeable that if your wifi is unsecured people will use it. Just like if I leave the keys in the door of my Ferrari, it is foreseeable that someone will steal it.

http://thraxocorp.webs.com/ Visit my totally awesome website: Thraxocorp. It's my own company and I'm totes the CEO.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 13:39 Edited at: 10th Feb 2012 13:41
Link
well the wifi hopping in the UK for new broadband users is now controlled as ISP's were slapped into sending out pre-configured secured routers... however some older ones still seem to be insecured... funny thing is everyone is entitled to a free upgrade lol which gives a better connection lol...

but yeah you have to remember not everyone knows as much as we do about computers... skme barely know what email is (met one the other day... its funny for my support system when a client doesnt have an email... as I have to use an internal email to log the issue lol)

but yeah it is ridiculous to blame the user... just blame the ISP for providing an unsecured box... and everyone is happy

EDIT

older'

Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 16:07 Edited at: 10th Feb 2012 16:11
Link
Well, in the UK afaik the ISPs responsible for the line up to and including the modem. (Usually the modem is built into the router. In the US, the ISP's responsible for everything up to the modem. The user's responsible for their modem.

Personally, I'd rather control my own modem/router, thanks

I'd say if you can't control access to your wifi, you shouldn't use wifi. You don't give out your car keys to just anybody do you? If you did, you'd expect to be responsible for any actions taken with the car. Sure, you wouldn't want to be responsible if your car hit someone when you were driving, but you better be able to give out names

darkBIT TGC Torrent Tracker / File Server - AGK Chat: #agk : irc.devhat.net
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
the_winch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 16:54
Link
Quote: "You don't give out your car keys to just anybody do you? If you did, you'd expect to be responsible for any actions taken with the car."


That's actually a common tactic used by criminals. Someone buys and keeps a car according to the law but allows their criminal associates to use it. The car does not attract unwanted police attention unlike a stolen or uninsured car. When the police investigate the criminal acts undertaken in the car the owner just claims they left the keys in the ignition and someone must have borrowed it.

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 17:00
Link
Quote: "the owner just claims they left the keys in the ignition and someone must have borrowed it."


Seems unlikely, doesn't that just make them the prime suspect?

Back to top
Profile PM
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 17:32 Edited at: 10th Feb 2012 17:41
Link
I think most crims know how to steal a car, do the job, dump it, then get another for the next job, they wouldnt drive around in the same car getting up to lots of wrongdoing (unless they were plain stupid). I find it even less likely that they would go to the trouble actually buying a car and using as described since it does in fact lead the cops to the door.

Its only common sense to use a secured router to prevent someone using it and stealing your bandwidth and with a limited range I suspect that its not going to be every hacker/bandwith thief in the country, so this wont stick in court, they are likely to use your ISP to download from the net. They could however accuse YOU of downloading since its you thats been logged doing the dirty deed.

I suspect this is just a way of preventing folks from saying "I left the key's in the car"

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 17:45
Link
Quote: "but how does having access to your neighbours wi-fi allow you access to their computer?"


Depending on how secure/insecure their setup is, you may have access to stuff on their local machine through windows shares, weak passwords, etc.

Quote: "the owner just claims they left the keys in the ignition and someone must have borrowed it"


If they were caught, surely they would be subject to aiding and abetting. If they were leaving their keys out with a little sign that said "the prius in the viscinity" (just like an open wifi access point), and then it was used to commit crimes, I've gotta wonder if such a thing would quickly be outlawed, and maybe it is already.

darkBIT TGC Torrent Tracker / File Server - AGK Chat: #agk : irc.devhat.net
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 17:54 Edited at: 10th Feb 2012 18:26
Link
Quote: ""but how does having access to your neighbours wi-fi allow you access to their computer?""

I had actually edited that remark (could have sworn I read that this was also about accessing media on your hard drive somewhere above).
Anyhow if it was the case then anyone who gets hacked router or not, would be held responsible for their content being stolen. A bit like being charged for having your house being broken into and all your movies stolen (I left the keys in the door..) insurance wont pay up but your unlikely to be taken to court for it.
Actually I reckon charges could only be brought if your uploading something you shouldn't rather than accessing it, as it is now, or they would go after the host, as they are doing now. So the whole "someone used my router to download a pirated move" is kind of moot.

Edit:
Quote: ""Defendants' negligent actions allowed others to unlawfully copy and share Plaintiff's copyrighted Motion Picture, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and unlawfully interfering with Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the Motion Picture."

This is what got me....give me a break!
If they could make that one stick, I'll eat my own liver, if it was uploaded from you then they dont need to say anything like this. It would be hard for you to say "I didnt do it!" they dont need this kind of nonsense to fill a 'loophole' as they obviously see it.
Recently there have been lawyers who have went after downloaders and been successful in getting compensation out of them, but these havent went to court for the simple reason that it was porn movies and those people do not want to appear in court, so coughed up right away

In fact having noticed the neighbour downloading 'Red hot Venezualan Vixens on his unsecured router last night I have a quick letter to go write...later

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 19:06
Link
Quote: "Yes. It is foreseeable that if your wifi is unsecured people will use it. Just like if I leave the keys in the door of my Ferrari, it is foreseeable that someone will steal it."

... and just like if I don't build a 10 foot fence around my property, it is foreseeable that someone may cross it to rob my neighbours house. That doesn't make me guilty because I didn't have a fence!

I can absolutely understand why people would not secure their wifi. If someone wants to use yours, then there's nothing stopping them at all - all of the current/common wifi encryption technologies have been compromised.

Now imagine two people, one with unencrypted wifi and one with encrypted wifi, both taken to court for infringement and both innocent - what defence can the guy with encrypted wifi use?

In addition, an IP address does not identify a person - you can't convict someone of possibly being the person that infringed on copyright, nor should you be able to.

This case is purely and simply an attempt to find someone to convict or someone to pay (settlement) without having to work at finding out the real culprit (ie scapegoating). If they go to court instead of settling, they get linked with the copyright infringement of a Gay movie, ie 'outed' whether they are Gay or not, whether they downloaded it or not.

I'm also very shocked that Marc Randazza is involved with this worst kind of Troll-like behaviour.

Get the latest Matrix1Utility plug-ins (11-SEPT-2011)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
rolfy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 20:15
Link
Quote: "In addition, an IP address does not identify a person - you can't convict someone of possibly being the person that infringed on copyright, nor should you be able to."

Sounds good but in reality whoever signed the contract for it would ultimately be held responsible for how it was used.
Quote: "
This case is purely and simply an attempt to find someone to convict or someone to pay (settlement) without having to work at finding out the real culprit (ie scapegoating). If they go to court instead of settling, they get linked with the copyright infringement of a Gay movie, ie 'outed' whether they are Gay or not, whether they downloaded it or not."

I entirely agree with this, whether or not it ever sees the light of day in a court wont matter, rumours will abound that it did happen.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Back to top
Profile PM
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 21:48
Link
Quote: "... and just like if I don't build a 10 foot fence around my property, it is foreseeable that someone may cross it to rob my neighbours house. That doesn't make me guilty because I didn't have a fence!"


Sorry but that analogy is just plain rubbish.

Quote: "Now imagine two people, one with unencrypted wifi and one with encrypted wifi, both taken to court for infringement and both innocent - what defence can the guy with encrypted wifi use?"


What defense can the guy with encrypted wifi use? He can use the defense that he had made an effort to secure his wifi. Regardless of how easy it is to crack into wifi that doesn't mean you shouldn't. Just because it's easy for a thief to pick my house lock or smash a window doesn't mean I leave my house unlocked and the door open when I go out. That's just asking to be robbed. Just like leaving an unsecured wifi network is an open invitation for people to use it.

Don't misunderstand my post. I don't believe these people should be punished for copyright theft. I don't believe they should be liable to pay damages to the studios. BUT I understand the logic behind it. That doesn't mean I agree with it!

http://thraxocorp.webs.com/ Visit my totally awesome website: Thraxocorp. It's my own company and I'm totes the CEO.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 10th Feb 2012 23:49
Link
Quote: "Sorry but that analogy is just plain rubbish. "

No, it's not. They used access supplied by my property to do something illegal. How is that rubbish? It's the closest analogy so far in this thread.

If he claims his wifi is encrypted (and remember, he's actually innocent) then the only people who could have downloaded the material are those with legitimate access to the wifi, at least in most peoples eyes - hence he's saying he or someone in his family is guilty. If the wifi isn't encrypted, then he can legitimately say that anyone could have done it. Either way, he can't prove he didn't, but on balance the guy with encryption is more likely to be seen as lying - he has an encrypted connection after all, and everyone knows that makes wifi safe, don't they?

Also, you have to consider that the average internet user knows nothing about wifi encryption, and if this thing has legs, they will then be criminals-in-waiting, just waiting for a copyright infringer to use their connection without their knowledge or consent, completely undetectably and unlogged. Or at least undetectably until the summons appears through their front door.

I also have to consider that I don't want to be accused of anything to do with copyright infringement, or my family, or my friends, when someone else uses my/their connection to infringe.

I don't understand the logic behind these accusations (at least on an actual 'law' point of view). If that kind of theory of liability is used then taking it to one logical extreme, the ISP is also guilty and so are the backbone carriers - that all allowed the access to take place after all!

The accusation filed seems to say:
If we find the files on your system, you're guilty.
If we don't find files on your system, then you're guilty anyway.

For the people in this case that did infringe, prove it, declare them guilty and then move on, but to declare someone guilty no matter what when their guilt is not proven (which is what this case appears to be trying to do to some of these people) is unjust and plain wrong.

Get the latest Matrix1Utility plug-ins (11-SEPT-2011)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zenassem
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 11th Feb 2012 02:34
Link
^My feelings exactly Ian. That's why I find this so absurd.

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Hodgey
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posted: 11th Feb 2012 11:38
Link
From what I've read, they're getting sued for negligence, which is, as I understand it, basically a breach of duty of care to the plaintiff. So, is not securing your wifi a breach of your duty?

Liberty Media Holdings LLC need to prove 'yes' to the above question for this to stick.

Personally, it's hard for me to pick either 'yes' or 'no' as I can see and understand points for both sides.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 02:28
Link
Quote: "^My feelings exactly Ian. That's why I find this so absurd."


Yep, same here.

[Like your avatar by the way. ]
Back to top
Profile PM Email
zenassem
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 16:05
Link
Quote: "[Like your avatar by the way. ]"

I was hoping it would catch on... and we could have a "Can you spot the real GG day!!!"

Now I changed it to option 2

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 18:32
Link
lol@option2

Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 19:09 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 19:11
Link
I think it's a good idea. Works even better with the Valued Member status.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
zenassem
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 19:22 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 19:44
Link
Quote: "I think it's a good idea. Works even better with the Valued Member status"


Yest it does!!!

Yay!!!,, "Can You Spot The REAL Green Gandalf WEEK" is back on!!!!



Get Your's Today...


~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 20:28
Link
Well they say 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'. Not sure if he'd find it flattering or just down right creepy.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Hodgey
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 22:32
Link
Now things are just getting confusing.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 00:56
Link
What's going on here?

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
DeadTomGC
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Aug 2010
Location: LU
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 01:02
Link
This is one of the many consequences of electing Obama. I'm not being racist. I'm just saying he hasn't been a good leader, especially when it comes to ACTA. He just signed it like it was his personal business when it could ruin thousands of peoples lives.


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heyufool1
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Feb 2009
Location: My quiet place
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 01:24
Link
Quote: "He just signed it like it was his personal business when it could ruin thousands of peoples lives"

He wasn't the only person to sign it so obviously other people share his opinions, not saying I agree with them.

"So hold your head up high and know. It's not the end of the road"

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Daniel TGC
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Feb 2007
Location: TGC
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 02:12 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 02:15
Link
Unsecured wifi is a haven for anyone up to no good. If you leave your connection open, and people make use of it, then technically you are sharing your broadband which is against the terms you agreed to when you entered a contract with your ISP. This already demonstrates that it's your network therefore it's usage is your responsibly.

Now if someone hacks your network password, that's a different thing altogether, you can claim all reasonable precautions were taken to prevent person X doing illegal activity Y on your network.

Furthermore leaving your home network unencrypted means it's easy for person X to get access to the data you are transmitting so I hope you didn't type in your credit card details recently.

The biggest issue with unsecured networks though, is that there's absolutely no agreement between you the host and the client who's connecting. As you never told whomever is connecting what they are, and are not allowed to do on your network in good faith, then you are giving them a free invitation to do whatever they please, and that could well from a legal stand point, that it's entirely your fault as the enabler.

You might not like it, but you don't take pre-emptive action in these things, then you're basically allowing the courts to decide the outcome, and we all know how fair they can be

Bottom line, encrypt your comms, and then it's the hackers fault not yours. If you really want to share your wifi then join some kind of hotspot plan like FON, then you can blame them for anything that happens.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 05:11
Link
Quote: "Furthermore leaving your home network unencrypted means it's easy for person X to get access to the data you are transmitting"


Elaborate?



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 14:12
Link
Seems someone didn't read past the thread title.

Get the latest Matrix1Utility plug-ins (11-SEPT-2011)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-19 18:09:37
Your offset time is: 2025-05-19 18:09:37