Russia Wants To Ban Children From Using WiFi

Overhype

from the with-liability-on-the-wifi-owner dept

Ah, Russia. Officials in the Federal Mass Media Inspection Service (?!?) are considering a plan to ban children from using WiFi — and would enforce the ban by holding the hotspot owners liable if anyone under 18 got on their networks. Seriously.

The Communications and Press Ministry has proposed banning children from using Wi-Fi networks in public, potentially making cafes, restaurants and other locations providing the service responsible for enforcing the law.

Why? For the children, of course! They claim it’s related to Russia’s new internet censorship law, which they’re afraid will be circumvented by kids at the local coffee shop or restaurant. Not surprisingly, various places that offer WiFi are not happy about this, pointing out that they have no way of making sure that teens don’t get on their WiFi. That doesn’t seem likely to stop moralizing bureaucrats (with a healthy appreciation for the ability to censor) from moving forward with this plan.

Filed Under: censorship, children, russia, wifi, wireless

Creepy Smartphone Malware Re-creates Your Home For Stalkers

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the whose-side-are-you-on? dept

It’s become something of a cliché that anyone with a mobile phone is carrying a tracking device that provides detailed information about their location. But things are moving on, as researchers (and probably others as well) explore new ways to subvert increasingly-common smartphones to gain other revealing data about their users. Here’s a rather clever use of malware to turn your smartphone into a system for taking clandestine photos — something we’ve seen before, of course, in other contexts — but which then goes even further by stitching them together to form a pretty accurate 3D model of your world:

The use of 3D reconstructions overcomes a potential problem with ordinary spyware: there’s often too much data whose significance is unclear. That makes finding anything interesting hard. The solution here is to combine all the data into a unified, virtual reconstruction that can then be navigated by snoopers looking for significant items just as they might if they were rooting through your physical space.

The full academic paper “PlaceRaider: Virtual Theft in Physical Spaces with Smartphones” (pdf) makes for fascinating reading, even if it doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “theft” and “surveillance”. It includes the following rather fanciful description of how this 3D-spying capability might be used. It’s rather over the top, but it gives an idea of what’s theoretically possible:

Well, maybe not. But what’s more interesting is the way that smartphone malware is able to gather enough information to allow the detailed reconstruction of complex spaces. The paper includes some impressive 3D reconstructions from apparently random images that have been stitched together. These and the research project that produced them are a salutary reminder that useful as they are, smartphones also bring with them new dangers that need to be considered and, ultimately, addressed.

Filed Under: 3d imagery, malware, mobile, surveillance

Now That We Know The Telcos Exaggerated About The 'Spectrum Crunch'; How About Some More Open Spectrum?

Wireless

from the pretty-please? dept

For years now, the big telcos have been whining and complaining about a supposed “spectrum crunch,” saying how they were going to run out of useful radio spectrum and wouldn’t be able to set up new wireless services if they couldn’t control more and more of it. And yet… as FierceWireless has noticed, the big guys all seem to think they have plenty of spectrum now:

Executives from the nation’s largest wireless carriers now seem to be pretty pleased with their spectrum positions. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently said the carrier has a solid spectrum position for the next three to five years if it gains approval for its pending spectrum purchases. Verizon Communications CFO Fran Shammo said that with its recently completed $3.9 billion purchase of nationwide AWS spectrum from cable companies, Verizon Wireless now has enough spectrum to handle its capacity needs for the next four to five years. Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse said the carrier’s Network Vision plan will give Sprint a strong spectrum position through the end of 2014 and that date will be extended to 2016 with the addition of spectrum from Clearwire. And T-Mobile USA CTO Neville Ray said the carrier is busy refarming its 1900 MHz PCS spectrum and now has enough 1700 MHz AWS airwaves to deploy 10×10 MHz channels across 90 percent of the top 25 U.S. markets when it launches LTE next year.

The report quotes analyst Tim Farrar explaining what many had been arguing for years — that the so-called “spectrum crunch” was basically a myth to get access to and control of ever-greater swaths of spectrum to keep it from others:

“I think it [the spectrum crunch] was overblown. And everyone had an interest in pumping up a spectrum crisis,” said TMF Associates analyst Tim Farrar. He said the FCC wanted to promote itself as the agency that could spur innovation and expand broadband access; Verizon and AT&T didn’t want the FCC to cap the amount of spectrum available to them; companies that speculated with spectrum did not want the market to think they had worthless assets; and smaller carriers wanted more spectrum on the market to lower the price of all spectrum. “Everybody had an interest in talking it up and no one had an interest in saying the emperor has no clothes,” he said.

And yet… one area where spectrum could be really useful? New open wireless offerings. But there we’re left stranded. Rather than looking for new ways to provide open spectrum, the government has continually focused on figuring out ways to give more to the big telcos. In fact, just as I was finishing up this story, I saw reports on the FCC’s new plans to release more spectrum — but most of it via auctions. Very little appears to be ticketed for openness. Unfortunately, part of the problem is that the government seems to value spectrum solely based on how much someone will pay for it — rather than the beneficial uses it might create. Thus you have fewer advocates willing to “pay” for open spectrum, and many who don’t understand the importance assume that open uses have no value. This, of course, ignores just how much open spectrum has enabled, from cordless phones to garage door openers to really powerful things like home automation and WiFi.

So, if we can see that the big telcos’ current spectrum appetite is satiated, and we can recognize how much open spectrum can enable amazing new innovations with tremendous benefit way beyond the price of the spectrum, shouldn’t there be a big focus on getting more open spectrum out there and available for use?

Filed Under: auctions, open spectrum, spectrum, spectrum crunch, wireless

California Governor Vetoes Bill Barring Gov't From Turning Off Mobile Phone Service

Free Speech

from the seems-like-it-should-already-be-illegal dept

You may recall how law enforcement in California tried to shut down a protest last year by turning off mobile phone service at a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station to prevent potential protestors (none of whom actually showed up) from communicating. This raised significant questions about whether or not such actions were even legal. Either way, a bill was introduced and passed in the state legislature that would have barred such a shut down in the future… but California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the bill, because apparently allowing law enforcement to cut off communications to prevent free speech is perfectly reasonable in his book. I still think the original action probably violated existing law, but it’s a shame that Governor Brown couldn’t stand up for basic freedom of speech issues, especially when it comes to having law enforcement shut down cell service to prevent public assembly and protest.

Filed Under: bart, california, free speech, jerry brown, mobile service, shutdown

Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'

Wireless

from the no,-it's-not dept

We’ve written a few times now about the argument used by some copyright trolls that leaving WiFi open is negligence. This has become a common claim in cases where an accused defendant claims they did not do any unauthorized file sharing of the work(s) in question, but that since their WiFi is open, it could have been just about anyone who accessed the network. The trolls are trying to wipe out this defense by arguing anyone who leaves their WiFi open is “negligent.” So far, however, the courts have completely and thoroughly rejected this argument multiple times. It’s basically dead.

But, apparently, that doesn’t stop some from still trotting it out. The CopyrightClerk site has the news of a recently filed lawsuit by Daniel Ruggiero, which has a number of claims — with the final one being the same old negligence theory.

Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.

Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendant’s failure to secure his Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing that supports those two statements, and the previous courts looking at such claims have already made that clear. Those rulings may not be precedential on this court (eastern district, Pennsylvania), but judges often are interested in how others have ruled on similar issues. One hopes that the defendant in this case, Andrew Burdziak, will make sure whoever represents him makes the judge aware of those other rulings.

Filed Under: copyright, negligence, trolls, wifi

First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs

Culture

from the soon-to-be-ex-wife dept

Well, here’s a nice contrast: just when a judge in the US has ruled that users there have no obligation to lock down their wifi connections, a court in France decides the exact opposite. What makes the story even more significant is that the individual concerned is the first person to be convicted under France’s 3-strikes law, generally known as HADOPI.

Not all of the facts of the case have been released, but we do know that he received and apparently ignored the statutory three warnings from HADOPI, and then was summoned to court, where things started to get interesting. As TorrentFreak reports:

That person turned out to be his wife (actually, soon to be ex-wife), who admitted that she had downloaded some Rihanna songs. But as Guillaume Champeau of Numerama pointed out to TorrentFreak, ironically this did not get him off the hook — on the contrary:

That’s because under the HADOPI law, it is the owner of the Internet connection who is held responsible for any infringement committed with it, so it’s the husband, not the (ex-)wife who has ended up being fined 150 euros (about $200) for negligence. That’s admittedly less than the 300 euros ($400), with 150 euros suspended, that the French prosecution wanted, and far less than the maximum possible 1,500 euros ($2000) fine. But it’s still a stiff price to pay for something he didn’t do.

Indeed, he seems to have taken the judgment hard: Guillaume Champeau points out that HADOPI’s first victim has now said that he intends to cancel his Internet subscription completely (original story in French). It’s hard to see how this kind of result is going to help the growth of digital music in France, and the whole episode is a neat encapsulation of all that is wrong with HADOPI’s approach.

Moreover, this case must reinforce the view that HADOPI is a colossal waste of money. In two years of existence, HADOPI has sent out 1.15 million first warnings, 102,854 second notices, and 340 “third strikes”. And yet all French government has to show for the 12 million euros it costs to run HADOPI each year is the conviction of one innocent man.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: france, hadopi, indirect infringement, secondary infringement, three strikes, wifi

Yet Another Court Says You're Not 'Negligent' If Someone Uses Your Open WiFi To Infringe

Wireless

from the shutting-down-that-line-of-argument dept

Some of the folks filing mass copyright infringement lawsuits have tried to claim that merely having an open WiFi connection on which someone else infringes on copyright-covered works is a form of negligence. Basically, they’re suing based solely on limited information — an IP address — and when those pursued point out that they have an open WiFi, the lawyers insist that this, alone, is a form of negligence. However, the courts aren’t buying it. In July, we wrote about a district court in New York rejecting this argument quickly, noting that the position was “untenable.”

And now a California district court has ruled similarly, completely rejecting the negligence theory on three different points. First up, there is no negligence because negligence requires a relationship and a duty to protect, but no such relationship exists between the copyright holder, AF Holdings, and the defendant in the case:

AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings’ copyrighted works, and the court is aware of none. Hatfield is not alleged to have any special relationship with AF Holdings that would give rise to a duty to protect AF Holdings’ copyrights, and is also not alleged to have engaged in any misfeasance by which he created a risk of peril.

The allegations in the complaint are general assertions that in failing to take action to “secure” access to his Internet connection, Hatfield failed to protect AF Holdings from harm. Thus, the complaint plainly alleges that Hatfield’s supposed liability is based on his failure to take particular actions, and not on the taking of any affirmative actions. This allegation of non-feasance cannot support a claim of negligence in the absence of facts showing the existence of a special relationship.

Even ignoring that, the court is skeptical. Noting that even if there was a negligence claim it would be unavailable in this case, because of copyright “pre-emption” (basically, federal copyright law wipes out any state statutes that seek to do the same work).

AF Holdings is seeking to protect its “exclusive rights” from “copying and sharing.” Simply recharacterizing the claim as one of “negligence” does not add a legally cognizable additional element…. Thus, because AF Holdings alleges that Hatfield’s action or inaction constituted interference with its “exclusive rights in the copyrighted work,” the negligence claim is preempted by § 301 of the Copyright Act.

And then the court goes even further, and says that even if the first two theories don’t kill the negligence claim, there’s also Section 230 of the CDA, which we’ve discussed for years. While the Section 230 safe harbors (protecting a service provider from liability concerning the actions of their users) technically does not apply to intellectual property issues, the negligence claim is not an IP law issue, and thus gets wiped out thanks to Section 230 immunity.

Basically, the idea that you’re negligent if you leave your WiFi open and someone else uses it to infringe seems dead in the water.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, negligence, open wifi, preemption, section 230, wifi
Companies: af holdings

Judge Says Sniffing Unencrypted WiFi Networks Is Not Wiretapping

Privacy

from the if-it's-freely-available... dept

There’s been a lot of discussion over the past few years concerning whether or not intercepting data on an open WiFi network is a form of “wiretapping.” This has been a central issue in one of the legal challenges to Google’s Street View cars collecting data from open WiFi networks. I’ve long argued that on such an open network, it shouldn’t be wiretapping because it’s wide open and available for anyone to see. Yes, that may be a security concern, but it’s one that an individual user can deal with. It certainly shouldn’t be illegal for someone to sniff that data. If you’re broadcasting something free and clear and I then read it… how is that wiretapping? Unfortunately, last year a judge in a case related to Google’s Street View capturing came to the opposite conclusion, but in a convoluted way where the court declared that WiFi is not a radio communication (even though it is).

However, in a totally unrelated case, a judge has now come to the exact opposite conclusion again, and noted that sniffing open WiFi is legal. The case is one that we’ve already talked about, though in a very different context. A patent troll called Innovatio IP has sued a bunch of businesses (hotels, coffee shops, restaurants) that offer WiFi to users, claiming that anyone using WiFi infringes, though it says “at this stage” it won’t go after individual users, only businesses. In trying to win its patent lawsuit, it wanted to use evidence from packet sniffing on some open networks, and asked the court to say that this is legal. And the judge has now said it is. First, unlike in the Google case, the judge has no problem recognizing that WiFi is electronic communication using radio waves. Then it points out that open WiFi quite clearly fits under the stated exception to the wiretapping laws, which is that they do not apply to “a system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.” The judge then pushes back on the ruling in the Google case, noting that the judge there claimed that the data on an open WiFi network was only available via “sophisticated technology.” This judge isn’t buying it:

… upon examination, the proposition that Wi-Fi communications are accessible only with sophisticated technology breaks down. As mentioned above, Innovatio is intercepting Wi-Fi communications with a Riverbed AirPcap Nx packet capture adapter, which is available to the public for purchase for $698.00. See Riverbed Technology Product Catalog, http://www.cacetech.com/products/catalog/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2012). A more basic packet capture adapter is available for only $198.00. Id. The software necessary to analyze the data that the packet capture adapters collect is available for down load for free. See Wireshark Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.wireshark.org/faq.html#sec1 (last visited Aug. 21, 2012) (“Wireshark is a network protocol analyzer. . . . It is freely available as open source. . . .”). With a packet capture adapter and the software, along with a basic laptop computer, any member of the general public within range of an unencrypted Wi-Fi network can begin intercepting communications sent on that network. Many Wi-Fi networks provided by commercial establishments (such as coffee shops and restaurants) are unencrypted, and open to such interference from anyone with the right equipment. In light of the ease of “sniffing” Wi-Fi networks, the court concludes that the communications sent on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network are readily available to the general public.

While the court admits that many users probably don’t know their unencrypted data is subject to sniffing, that does not play into the analysis. The law doesn’t say whether or not the user’s perception matters. It only matters if the communications are “readily available to the general public,” which they are. Legal expert (especially on privacy issues) Orin Kerr disagrees with this ruling, claiming that the intent of whoever configures the network is what matters, but I’m not sure I buy that claim either. He compares it to early cordless phones that easily “leaked” data, noting that no one designed those systems to do that, and the same is likely true in most cases with open WiFi. But that’s pretty different. The case of unencrypted data on an open wireless network isn’t some sort of accidental leakage, it’s the basic nature of any open network.

Either way, I get the feeling this is not the last we’ll be hearing of these kinds of cases. Though, if you’re really worried about your data on open WiFi networks, there’s an easy way to deal with it: encrypt your data.

Filed Under: privacy, sniffing, wifi, wiretapping