Open wi-fi: an ethical and legal quandary.

When questioning the legal implications of open wi-fi network usage, Computer Technology Review (CTR) posted a fair summary of the issue last month. CTR noted that relevant laws in this area aren’t really that relevant at all, since they predate wi-fi usage and were established instead to combat blackhats from gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the likely purpose of malevolent action. Today, the issue is muddied because not all wi-fi networks are intended to be secure.

A person might not password protect their Wi-Fi network because they believe in open Internet access and they welcome others using their network. Other people might not password protect their Wi-Fi network because they forgot to do so or lack the technical skill. These people may not want others to use their Wi-Fi networks. Due to the mixed views people have in regards to open Wi-Fi access, it is impossible for someone to distinguish which open Wi-Fi connections are for the benefit of society and which are open merely due to a person’s failure to install protections.

In many cities, it is not uncommon to find open wi-fi networks for free public use, often with names not necessarily indicative of this purpose. Similarly, these same cities are home to networks that appear open, but are heavily restricted. The SSID of a given wireless network is simply not a good indicator of the network’s purpose, because SSIDs can be arbitrarily named, and can intentionally be made deceptive. Quite simply, knowing that sharing a broadband connection is legal, and that some wireless networks are open with the intent to be shared publicly, roaming computer users have no inherent ability to determine which networks are intended to be private. While this may be seen as a negative trait to those arguing against the legality of open wi-fi usage by the public, it’s a merit of the wi-fi framework: why should wi-fi equipment require the broadcasting of a “private” versus “public” flag when there are already numerous options for network administrators to prevent unauthorized usage. For one, not only can wi-fi operators password protect their networks to prevent public use, but they can also prevent a given network’s SSID from broadcasting at all. And then there’s other network obfuscation techniques such as changing one’s wireless network frequency and/or channel. In other words, the 802.11x framework already contains numerous mechanisms for denying access to the average computer nomad.

Legally, it’s folly to prosecute access of an open wi-fi network. If the accessing agent continues to engage in malevolent behavior once on the network, there are plenty of laws on the books to punish the individual in question. And that’s precisely why there’s been little headway in making simple wi-fi access illegal: it’s a grey area that favors the roaming computer user, not the network administrator. We simply don’t need additional laws curtailing wi-fi access because the social context of access, and the administrative options of wireless routers, already alleviate these concerns where existing computer crime laws are not applicable.

People who are supportive of laws criminalizing access of open Wi-Fi networks have compared accessing an open Wi-Fi network to walking into a person’s home just because the door was unlocked. However, the act of walking into a person’s home uninvited is commonly known to be a crime, and while it may be similar to a person hacking into another’s computer network through a firewall, it is not similar to merely accessing a Wi-Fi signal outside of someone’s home or business. Open Wi-Fi connections are more like open radio signals or even music being played inside a business or a home that can be heard outside. The radio signal and/or music has come to you, you have not actively pursued access to it without authorization.

Perhaps the crux of the matter is really about effort taken by the network owner in preventing unwanted use. Most internet service providers do not include wireless hardware with their equipment offerings. DSL and cable companies provide a modem requiring an ethernet connection. This means that end-users must specifically opt into using wireless equipment, usually by purchasing a wireless router. As soon as thisis done, the burden of securing the wireless network is on the broadband subscriber. We can argue that such routers should, perhaps, default to a setting in which one’s SSID is not broadcast, or with a password pre-set. However, since every router comes with a manual describing its settings, to claim ignorance that one simply didn’t know that a random person could gain access to one’s network without making the appropriate changes, is folly. After all, the very nature of wi-fi is explosive – radio frequencies emitted from routers are generally designed to be sent in all directions, even through walls. While wi-fi blocking paints (lead and otherwise) are available, drastic measures like these need not even be taken: a simple virtual toggle, explained in a user’s router manual, does the trick just fine. If you don’t want your neighbors watching your TV through your window, then close your curtains. The price of living in a populated area means taking additional steps to preserve your privacy.

That said, there’s still an ethical factor to this equation. If we acknowledge that the real burden is on the network owner, because he is the one responsible for the use of his hardware, we can still question the morality of hogging a router’s bandwidth. After all, just because it’s legal for someone to access a random, open wireless network, does not necessarily make it ethical to burden that network with bitorrent traffic. After all, if the network is indeed expected to be utilized by the public, is it fair for one user to significantly impact the performance of the network at the expense of other users, to include the owner himself?

In a perfect world, every network operator who wanted their network to remain private would not broadcast their SSIDs, enable password protection, and enable filtering of connections by known MAC addresses. Similarly, all networks intended for public use would be named after some variation of “Public Wireless 001″. Since the world’s not perfect, however, it’s up to everyone who runs a wireless network at home to learn how their equipment functions, and configure their networks appropriately. Similarly, we nomads of the digital age need to be aware that we’re not alone, and minimize our bandwidth footprint when network-squatting. At least until there really is a ubiquitous wireless shield around the globe.

Tagged as: internet, law, mendax.org