4 ms·

The advice to run your wifi router unencrypted is not right. Too much of a security risk, too much chance of abuse in a city. It may reduce the chance of succ

by rdw 14y ago

The advice to run your wifi router unencrypted is not right. Too much of a security risk, too much chance of abuse in a city. It may reduce the chance of successful prosecution of copyright infringement, but it seems like it opens you to being implicated for more serious crimes.

greenyoda 14y ago
I've read at least one news story (sorry, forgot the details) of a guy who had a SWAT team break down his door because someone had used his open Wi-Fi router to send a threatening message. You could also get the police at your door if your neighbor (or someone driving by in a car) uses your Wi-Fi to visit a child porn site, or something like that. Still, not talking to the police seems to be good advice. For more information on that, see this video: "Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane (27:25) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
- jdhopeunique 14y ago
  In some states you are required to identify yourself and a recent court ruling showed that merely remaining silence was not enough to invoke one's right to silence. One must paradoxically, speak up to have the right to remain silent. Here are 2 relevant links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States
  - gwillen 14y ago
    I've never seen this as especially paradoxical. As long as you choose not to speak, you are free to remain silent. As soon as you start speaking, you are choosing to speak, and not be silent. The only effect of verbally invoking your right to remain silent, as far as I'm aware, is that the police have to stop interrogating you. It would make sense for the police to have to stop after you refuse to answer their questions for some defined period, but it also makes sense (and this is more or less the reasoning of the court as I understand it) to say that, while you are free to be silent, the cops are free to keep asking questions unless you affirmatively indicate your desire that they stop. The main problem remaining, I think, is the fact that people do not know they can so ask.

by rdw 14y ago

greenyoda 14y ago

I've read at least one news story (sorry, forgot the details) of a guy who had a SWAT team break down his door because someone had used his open Wi-Fi router to send a threatening message. You could also get the police at your door if your neighbor (or someone driving by in a car) uses your Wi-Fi to visit a child porn site, or something like that. Still, not talking to the police seems to be good advice. For more information on that, see this video: "Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane (27:25) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

jdhopeunique 14y ago
In some states you are required to identify yourself and a recent court ruling showed that merely remaining silence was not enough to invoke one's right to silence. One must paradoxically, speak up to have the right to remain silent. Here are 2 relevant links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States
- gwillen 14y ago
  I've never seen this as especially paradoxical. As long as you choose not to speak, you are free to remain silent. As soon as you start speaking, you are choosing to speak, and not be silent. The only effect of verbally invoking your right to remain silent, as far as I'm aware, is that the police have to stop interrogating you. It would make sense for the police to have to stop after you refuse to answer their questions for some defined period, but it also makes sense (and this is more or less the reasoning of the court as I understand it) to say that, while you are free to be silent, the cops are free to keep asking questions unless you affirmatively indicate your desire that they stop. The main problem remaining, I think, is the fact that people do not know they can so ask.