5 ms·

Well, if his Internet connection is open, then he's open to being prosecuted for what other people might download on it. As a celebrity, he probably has some s

Well, if his Internet connection is open, then he's open to being prosecuted for what other people might download on it. As a celebrity, he probably has some substantial de facto immunity against this. (One blog post, and "the Internet" will show up on his side.) The rest of us... not so much.

bad_user 14y ago
Actually with an open wifi you're more protected agaist such instances because it's concrete proof that your IP was shared by other people, considering how ISVs assign these IPs dynamically and that their logs may not be accurate.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  Have you checked this line of reasoning with an actual lawyer?
- tadfisher 14y ago
  Precedent?
- maigret 14y ago
  Only in the case the local law doesn't hold you responsible for not having protected your network in the first place. [Edit] This is the case in Germany. http://ratgeber-recht.welt.de/offene-wlan-hotspots-sind-zulaessig_029135.html http://ratgeber-recht.welt.de/offene-wlan-hotspots-sind-zula... You may have your own hotspot but you may be liable for misuses.
  - pasbesoin 14y ago
    And in civil lawsuits, you can spend several thousand dollars in legal fees more or less effectively making your point. Also, it's increasingly apparent that other jurisdictions will increasingly attempt -- or be used -- to ensnare people in more... "permissive" jurisdictions. Don't like the venue? Sue -- or prosecute -- them in another venue. On the one hand, I feel sad that my response to this is to "close up" connectivity. On the other hand, I for one don't have the resources with which to liberally take such situations on.
mikeash 14y ago
That assumes that his network allows anyone to connect to the internet from it, which is not implied here. Open wifi usually lets anyone who hops on the network talk to the world, but I'd bet someone like Schneier is more sophisticated about that sort of thing.

bad_user 14y ago

Actually with an open wifi you're more protected agaist such instances because it's concrete proof that your IP was shared by other people, considering how ISVs assign these IPs dynamically and that their logs may not be accurate.

snowwrestler 14y ago
Have you checked this line of reasoning with an actual lawyer?
tadfisher 14y ago
Precedent?
maigret 14y ago
Only in the case the local law doesn't hold you responsible for not having protected your network in the first place. [Edit] This is the case in Germany. http://ratgeber-recht.welt.de/offene-wlan-hotspots-sind-zulaessig_029135.html http://ratgeber-recht.welt.de/offene-wlan-hotspots-sind-zula... You may have your own hotspot but you may be liable for misuses.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  And in civil lawsuits, you can spend several thousand dollars in legal fees more or less effectively making your point. Also, it's increasingly apparent that other jurisdictions will increasingly attempt -- or be used -- to ensnare people in more... "permissive" jurisdictions. Don't like the venue? Sue -- or prosecute -- them in another venue. On the one hand, I feel sad that my response to this is to "close up" connectivity. On the other hand, I for one don't have the resources with which to liberally take such situations on.

mikeash 14y ago

That assumes that his network allows anyone to connect to the internet from it, which is not implied here. Open wifi usually lets anyone who hops on the network talk to the world, but I'd bet someone like Schneier is more sophisticated about that sort of thing.