Comments on: Wireless, Security, and Liability http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:00:07 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32949 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:37:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32949 81e31de21f46 Very good <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav" rel="nofollow">tramadol</a> tramadol 81e31de21f46 Very good tramadol tramadol

]]> By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45398 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:37:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45398 81e31de21f46 Very good <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav" rel="nofollow">tramadol</a> tramadol 81e31de21f46 Very good tramadol tramadol

]]> By: VovkaBobSS http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32948 VovkaBobSS Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:01:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32948 Mej We are happy girls! Ce mai faceti? <a>Canopy Tarp</a> <a>Bad Credit Mortgage Canada</a> <a>Belly Button Community Type</a> <a>Agent Estate Florida Real</a> <a>Banker Maryland Mortgage</a> <a>Bad Credit Louisiana Mortgage</a> <a>Jeep Sale</a> <a>Carpentry And Building Construction</a> <a>Pleasanton California Real Estate Agent</a> Vastomazonok Mej

We are happy girls!

Ce mai faceti?
Canopy Tarp Bad Credit Mortgage Canada Belly Button Community Type Agent Estate Florida Real Banker Maryland Mortgage
Bad Credit Louisiana Mortgage
Jeep Sale Carpentry And Building Construction
Pleasanton California Real Estate Agent
Vastomazonok

]]> By: VovkaBobSS http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45397 VovkaBobSS Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:01:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45397 Mej<br><br>We are happy girls!<br><br>Ce mai faceti?<br><a>Canopy Tarp</a> <a>Bad Credit Mortgage Canada</a> <a>Belly Button Community Type</a> <a>Agent Estate Florida Real</a> <a>Banker Maryland Mortgage</a><br><a>Bad Credit Louisiana Mortgage</a><br><a>Jeep Sale</a> <a>Carpentry And Building Construction</a><br><a>Pleasanton California Real Estate Agent</a><br>Vastomazonok Mej

We are happy girls!

Ce mai faceti?
Canopy Tarp Bad Credit Mortgage Canada Belly Button Community Type Agent Estate Florida Real Banker Maryland Mortgage
Bad Credit Louisiana Mortgage
Jeep Sale Carpentry And Building Construction
Pleasanton California Real Estate Agent
Vastomazonok

]]> By: Deron s http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45396 Deron s Fri, 19 May 2006 03:34:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45396 If people looked ahead when building or renovating their facilities, homes etc they could cost effectively secure signals from leaving or entering the structure. So for future reference the legal issue would no longer exist. Open networks, encryption simply create opportunity good and bad. If people looked ahead when building or renovating their facilities, homes etc they could cost effectively secure signals from leaving or entering the structure. So for future reference the legal issue would no longer exist. Open networks, encryption simply create opportunity good and bad.

]]> By: Deron s http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32947 Deron s Fri, 19 May 2006 02:34:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32947 If people looked ahead when building or renovating their facilities, homes etc they could cost effectively secure signals from leaving or entering the structure. So for future reference the legal issue would no longer exist. Open networks, encryption simply create opportunity good and bad. If people looked ahead when building or renovating their facilities, homes etc they could cost effectively secure signals from leaving or entering the structure. So for future reference the legal issue would no longer exist. Open networks, encryption simply create opportunity good and bad.

]]> By: skeptical http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32946 skeptical Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:31:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32946 OK, but as practical matter, it is possible for people to hack through password security like those protecting WiFi networks, right? How should we keep them from doing it? OK, but as practical matter, it is possible for people to hack through password security like those protecting WiFi networks, right? How should we keep them from doing it?

]]> By: skeptical http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45395 skeptical Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:31:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45395 OK, but as practical matter, it is possible for people to hack through password security like those protecting WiFi networks, right? How should we keep them from doing it? OK, but as practical matter, it is possible for people to hack through password security like those protecting WiFi networks, right? How should we keep them from doing it?

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32945 Tim Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:19:47 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32945 Skeptical: of course not. Skeptical: of course not.

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45394 Tim Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:19:47 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45394 Skeptical: of course not. Skeptical: of course not.

]]> By: skeptical http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32944 skeptical Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:38:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32944 Tim, in your op-ed piece you say the problem can be solved easily by WiFi network owners simply restricting access by strangers with a password. Should people be allowed to hack through those passwords or not? Tim, in your op-ed piece you say the problem can be solved easily by WiFi network owners simply restricting access by strangers with a password. Should people be allowed to hack through those passwords or not?

]]> By: skeptical http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45393 skeptical Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:38:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45393 Tim, in your op-ed piece you say the problem can be solved easily by WiFi network owners simply restricting access by strangers with a password. Should people be allowed to hack through those passwords or not? Tim, in your op-ed piece you say the problem can be solved easily by WiFi network owners simply restricting access by strangers with a password. Should people be allowed to hack through those passwords or not?

]]> By: Ed Felten http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32943 Ed Felten Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:39:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32943 In a civil suit, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. If it is known for certain that some bad act was committed via your WiFi, a plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that you were the person who did it. They can brush off your argument that it might have been an outsider by saying, "Maybe, but probably not." In a civil suit, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. If it is known for certain that some bad act was committed via your WiFi, a plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that you were the person who did it. They can brush off your argument that it might have been an outsider by saying, “Maybe, but probably not.”

]]> By: Ed Felten http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45392 Ed Felten Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:39:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45392 In a civil suit, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. If it is known for certain that some bad act was committed via your WiFi, a plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that you were the person who did it. They can brush off your argument that it might have been an outsider by saying, "Maybe, but probably not." In a civil suit, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. If it is known for certain that some bad act was committed via your WiFi, a plaintiff only has to prove that it is more likely than not that you were the person who did it. They can brush off your argument that it might have been an outsider by saying, “Maybe, but probably not.”

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32942 MikeT Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:50:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32942 <p>Jon,</p> <p>I know all about innocent until proven guilty, but the activity from your router is probably going to look like you did it, until you can bring in enough evidence to prove that it didn't have to be you who did the dirty deed. It's about saving a lot of stress.</p> Jon,

I know all about innocent until proven guilty, but the activity from your router is probably going to look like you did it, until you can bring in enough evidence to prove that it didn’t have to be you who did the dirty deed. It’s about saving a lot of stress.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45391 MikeT Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:50:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45391 <p>Jon,</p><br><p>I know all about innocent until proven guilty, but the activity from your router is probably going to look like you did it, until you can bring in enough evidence to prove that it didn't have to be you who did the dirty deed. It's about saving a lot of stress.</p> Jon,

I know all about innocent until proven guilty, but the activity from your router is probably going to look like you did it, until you can bring in enough evidence to prove that it didn’t have to be you who did the dirty deed. It’s about saving a lot of stress.

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32941 Aaron Brazell Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32941 ...And if the FCC thinks that you're an ISP, you better cough up the $230 application fee. http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/services/broadband.pdf …And if the FCC thinks that you’re an ISP, you better cough up the $230 application fee.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/services/broadband.pdf

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45390 Aaron Brazell Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45390 ...And if the FCC thinks that you're an ISP, you better cough up the $230 application fee.<br><a href="http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/services/broadband.pdf">http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/serv...</a> …And if the FCC thinks that you’re an ISP, you better cough up the $230 application fee.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/serv...

]]> By: Jon Gales http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32940 Jon Gales Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:16:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32940 MikeT, the way the US legal system works the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's up to me to prove that it was you. If anyone within a 250ft radius of an area could have done something and you have no more information, you simply can't go after whoever owns the property at the center of the circle. MikeT, the way the US legal system works the burden of proof is on the accuser. It’s up to me to prove that it was you. If anyone within a 250ft radius of an area could have done something and you have no more information, you simply can’t go after whoever owns the property at the center of the circle.

]]> By: Jon Gales http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45389 Jon Gales Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:16:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45389 MikeT, the way the US legal system works the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's up to me to prove that it was you. If anyone within a 250ft radius of an area could have done something and you have no more information, you simply can't go after whoever owns the property at the center of the circle. MikeT, the way the US legal system works the burden of proof is on the accuser. It’s up to me to prove that it was you. If anyone within a 250ft radius of an area could have done something and you have no more information, you simply can’t go after whoever owns the property at the center of the circle.

]]> By: Tor http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32939 Tor Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:58:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32939 There's a simple technical solution to the liability problem: route all traffic from your neighbors through TOR (http://tor.eff.org/). Liability approaches 0. There’s a simple technical solution to the liability problem: route all traffic from your neighbors through TOR (http://tor.eff.org/). Liability approaches 0.

]]> By: Tor http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45387 Tor Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:58:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45387 There's a simple technical solution to the liability problem: route all traffic from your neighbors through TOR (<a href="http://tor.eff.org/">http://tor.eff.org/</a>). Liability approaches 0. There’s a simple technical solution to the liability problem: route all traffic from your neighbors through TOR (http://tor.eff.org/). Liability approaches 0.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-32938 MikeT Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:06:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-32938 <p>Tim,</p> <p>Since the average router doesn't keep any logs, you're going to be hard-pressed to prove that it wasn't you. I have to disagree with you on this one. It's like leaving your house open so that a stranger can come in and sleep on your living room sofa. They might be honest, but they very well might rob you blind. The fact is, the average person cannot prove that it wasn't them, and the RIAA has been known to go after people who claimed ignorance.</p> Tim,

Since the average router doesn’t keep any logs, you’re going to be hard-pressed to prove that it wasn’t you. I have to disagree with you on this one. It’s like leaving your house open so that a stranger can come in and sleep on your living room sofa. They might be honest, but they very well might rob you blind. The fact is, the average person cannot prove that it wasn’t them, and the RIAA has been known to go after people who claimed ignorance.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/comment-page-1/#comment-45386 MikeT Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:06:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/03/20/wireless-security-and-liability/#comment-45386 <p>Tim,</p><br><p>Since the average router doesn't keep any logs, you're going to be hard-pressed to prove that it wasn't you. I have to disagree with you on this one. It's like leaving your house open so that a stranger can come in and sleep on your living room sofa. They might be honest, but they very well might rob you blind. The fact is, the average person cannot prove that it wasn't them, and the RIAA has been known to go after people who claimed ignorance.</p> Tim,

Since the average router doesn’t keep any logs, you’re going to be hard-pressed to prove that it wasn’t you. I have to disagree with you on this one. It’s like leaving your house open so that a stranger can come in and sleep on your living room sofa. They might be honest, but they very well might rob you blind. The fact is, the average person cannot prove that it wasn’t them, and the RIAA has been known to go after people who claimed ignorance.

]]>