August 05, 2004
Crossing the Wi-Fine Line?
If you access an open Wi-Fi connection in the woods and nobody hears you, have you broken the law?
This type of mixed question seems to be stumping a lot of experts. Thanks to Ernie posting a related link, I just read a great article by Mark Rasch, the former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, who now serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc.
Mark gives a number of everyday examples, and points out the thorny legal issues. One of the big ones is how much should individuals be held accountable for not securing their own Wi-Fi networks?
Mr. Rasch responds:
"You're busted! You see, when you "broadcast" the cable connection, you are opening it up for anyone to potentially use it. So other people can potentially get Internet access from Comcast without paying for it. In Maryland, for example, it is illegal to use an "unlawful telecommunication device" which is a "device, technology, [or] product . . used to provide the unauthorized . . . transmission of . . access to, or acquisition of a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication service provider." Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia and Wyoming all have laws on the books that may do the same thing."
Regardless of the outcome, it's just not wise to expose oneself to the threat of prosecution, embarrassment, and substantial legal defense fees for the sake of convenience. Regarding intruders accessing unsecured access points, Mr. Rasch properly raises the "slippery slope" problem, "How much security must you have on a system in order to be able to prosecute someone for accessing it without authorization?"
However, in regard to the "cable sharing" laws above, one would think the Wi-Fi network owner's simple act of enabling encryption, disabling the network name broadcast, and other easy security steps would be enough to keep him/her out of hot water. Again, how much security is required?
His answer to all of the above: "But ultimately if we want to move to ubiquitous wireless computing, where you can use the WiFi protocols for cheap, mobile VOIP communications, or have near universal wireless Internet access, we are going to have to persuade the law to get the hell out of the way."
My take on this is that intent plays a large part of the equation. Did you just set up your first wireless router and left it open out of sheer ignorance? Or did you then tell your neighbors, "Pssst, want some free cable Internet if you cut my lawn?" In a busy downtown coffee shop, did your wireless laptop automatically jump onto another's Wi-Fi network because its default settings told it to connect to the first open access point it found? What if that wasn't the coffee shop's free network, but that of the business next store? The problem is that other than reading the SSID (the wireless network's broadcasted name), it's not easy to know whose network it is. It's not like when you go to log in at the office, and a message pops up to tell you it's a private network, keep out unless authorized.
Both the technology and the law need to meet somewhere on these issues. Many of these questions and cases are very fact-specific. But here is the Catch-22: If the technology needs to add features like the ability to broadcast a "Private Property: Keep Out" message to provide notice of unauthorized access, then that broadcast itself is compromising security by announcing the network's presence in the first place. Perhaps this could be mitigated by enabling basic security as a default in the hardware from the manufacturers. In turn, the laws need to address the intention issues.
In the meantime, given the rate at which the law generally lags behind technological advances, we're probably in for a bumpy ride.
Topic(s): Privacy & Security
Posted by Jeff Beard