Wireless & the Law

Whilst doing research on wireless network and the state of the law about piggybacking etc, came across some interesting judgements and commentary from around the world in the last two years. The question in some countries is does an insecure wireless network make it a public network.

May 2010: In Germany, the country's top criminal court ruled that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party. The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file-sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded. Should of turned the AP off when not in use.

March 2011: A Dutch court has ruled that hacking into Wi-Fi connections is not a crime providing any connected computers remain untouched. However Wi-Fi freeloaders would still lay themselves open to civil proceedings. The unusual ruling came in the case of a student who threatened a shooting rampage against staff at students at Maerlant College in The Hague. The threat was posted on 4chan, the notoriously anarchic Internet image board, after the student broke into a secure Wi-Fi connection. The unnamed student was caught and convicted of posting the message but acquitted on the hacking charge.

Feb 2011: A senior court judge has pointed to severe problems with the way the Digital Economy Act enables copyright owners to accuse people of illegal filesharing. Judge Birss QC said on Tuesday that the process of connecting copyright infringement to a named individual based on their use of an Internet address is fraught with difficulties because Internet connections, or IP addresses, are often used by more than one person. The use of "unsecured" Internet connections which allow others to "piggyback" on their network leads to more complications, Birss said, adding that these issues are "key" in proving copyright infringement before a court of law. That could create serious problems for copyright owners seeking to enforce their rights under the Digital Economy Act. Although the law allows for a "three strikes" provision in which Internet service providers (ISPs) would be required to write to the people who are using an IP address at a time that it is found to be infringing, it has not yet been implemented.

Apr 2011: Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School when discussing the raid on a Buffalo homeowner for downloading child porn which was done buy his neighbour, "The question," said Kerr, "is whether it's unauthorised access and so you have to say, 'Is an open wireless point implicitly authorising users or not?' "We don't know," Kerr said. "The law prohibits unauthorised access and it's just not clear what's authorised with an open unsecured wireless."

The law may not be too clear in some countries but in the UK piggybacking is illegal, how harmonisation of laws across Europe will affect this in the future is hard to predict. From a homeowner's point of view I would say encrypt or risk legal problems.