Comments on: Using WiFI to Infringe Copyright – The Moral Dilemma

By: luke

luke — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:37:03 +0000

so basically, if we all run unencrypted wifis and share our connections with anyone else, there would be no way to tell who’s doing what… and that’s probably why ‘the man’ pushes so much on ‘dont let your neighbors use your wifi’. I say LET THEM!
(and yes, I have been sharing my connection for years)

By: Techie

Techie — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:39:39 +0000

It’s really just lazy evidence gathering.

As a techie, I can tell you that IP and MAC addresses are one way to trace someone, but there are better ways, as those two can be faked. If there was more investigation into the WAP users, things could be better traced to a specific system. Then, when the perp uses that system to access from another spot. It’s nab time.

By: Jonesy

Jonesy — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:03:19 +0000

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies for criminal law. If they go after you for downloading material they’d be doing it in civil court. In civil court it’s not about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s about proving which party is more likely to be right. If the court sides with the RIAA or MPAA then the downloader has to pay compensatory damages for loss of sales, etc. Of course that’s for US law–in foreign nations it can be completely different.

By: NinjaDevilz

NinjaDevilz — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:52:01 +0000

Hardware companies which make the devices that are used in these Wi-Fi connections should have set up a default password setting etc, to protect the users of their products. That way, the option of disabling the security protocols is a manual one, so there would be no grounds for the owner to deny responsibility.

It makes no sense for the hardware manufacturers to put their users at such risks.

In this case, the manufacturers should also be sued. The owner can plea limited responsibility.

Who’s to say those doing the suing won’t sue both users and owners equally? Afterall, this would maximise profits for them.

By: Backtrack4love

Backtrack4love — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:34:27 +0000

Encryption is very easy to break using the tools available in backtrack linux. It makes this practically invalidated.

By: wallis

wallis — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:09:33 +0000

At the moment open wifi is not a crime. Fon from Fonero and as supplied by BT uses this.as do other free and comercial providers eg airports and the Cloud,etc. The DEB seeks not to outlaw the open wifi but the consequences of open wifi public or private should they be notified of a copyright problem. the bill seeks to criminalize a civil offence in a most vindictive way. IP addresses have been specified in simplistic terms- due process and legal oversights have been ignored or overridden and our legislative process has been commercialised by mandelson and his cronies in a most objectionable way.join the pirate party uk is what i say.

By: devanite

devanite — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:16:25 +0000

I disagree, hmm, lets say for instance talk talk, the only respectable ISP in your country from the sounds of things gets punished for something you did while all the while they have been protecting you because of simply following the law, what a way to pay back the only one and respecteable ISP in your country man

By: anon

anon — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:34:34 +0000

can’t wait until digruntled employees tart leaving unsecured WAP’s on premise to frame their ex-employers – oh so much fun for the true criminals but more of a threat to society in general by finger pointing…

I’m thinking of opening up my WAP just to keep from being liable for my own traffic.

By: DanielRemains

DanielRemains — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:40:46 +0000

The only one who should get the blame is the Internet Service Provider. Most of them (mine didn’t) don’t tell their customers how to secure their WiFi networks. Imagine the 75 years old lady getting blamed for downloading porn while it’s her neighbour who downloaded the movie. They can’t, I mean CAN’T, blame the customer. The only one to blame is the ISP.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:46:10 +0000

Chevron is right. All these threats being sent out and these laws being passed are trying to make all of us look out only for ourselves – cover our own backs. Sharing feels right and natural. The technology out there is best suited for sharing – the reason the Internet started the way it did was because of trust and open networks.

Instead of resisting and challenging business motives for trying to cripple our technology and freedom to share, many of us are happy to do as we’re told in case we’re next to receive one of those nasty letters.