6 ms·

There are other, valid reasons to not run a public access point. Not wanting neighbors to steal your bandwidth, run a TOR node off it, or host illegal content,

There are other, valid reasons to not run a public access point. Not wanting neighbors to steal your bandwidth, run a TOR node off it, or host illegal content, for example. All of these activities could get you removed from your ISP, and even taken to court. While you could probably prove your innocence in court, I can not imagine why taking the risk for absolutely no personal benefit is worth the risk. I don't really see how running an open wifi network shows anything other than ignorance of the risks.

icebraining 11y ago
Do you think Schneier is ignorant of the risks?
- bduerst 11y ago
  >Certainly this does concern ISPs. Running an open wireless network will often violate your terms of service. But despite the occasional cease-and-desist letter and providers getting pissy at people who exceed some secret bandwidth limit, this isn't a big risk either. The worst that will happen to you is that you'll have to find a new ISP. ^ FTA. Not "ignorant", but more flippant. Not everyone has options when it comes to ISPs.
  - DrStalker 11y ago
    Or unlimited bandwidth. There's no way I'd run open WiFi in Australia because I only have a finite amount of downloading I can do, and I pay for the amount I expect to use myself so can't afford other people leeching off my connection.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Bruce Schneier is a very smart guy, but let's not deify him; he can be wrong about things too. For example in the above column he repeats an urban myth: that running an open WiFi access point provides an affirmative defense against prosecution for things like piracy, hacking, or child porn. I call it an urban myth because, personally, I have yet to find a court case in which such an argument was made, let alone one in which it was a determinant in the verdict. It's endlessly repeated online, with seemingly no evidence that it is true. (If someone reading this is aware of such a case, please reply with it! I would love to know.) Also be aware that this was written when WEP was the state of the art in encrypting WiFi, and long before tools like Firesheep were widely available. You can't expect Schneier to make security arguments that will be true forever. Today it is so easy to snoop on open WiFi traffic that any given 11 year old could do--and today WPA2 is sufficently good to stop that. At the same time, Bruce can be really right about things too, like how to properly secure a laptop. If anyone could run open WiFi and still be secure, it's a security expert. As opposed to my dad, who until recently was running Windows XP SP1 on his computer. He benefits from an encrypted WiFi signal as the first layer of the security onion.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    People assert the counterexample, too, but in reality it's hard to find real cases where anything bad happened as a result of running an open wifi network.
    - rev_bird 11y ago
      There are many, though they all came out of people trying to get away from kiddie porn charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-chil...
      - marssaxman 11y ago
        The article mentions three cases, which I would not call "many". I have not been able to find any real numbers on this scenario; only a scattered handful of anecdotes, most of them referring to the same original news articles. I'm not worried. It is extremely unlikely that there are any kiddie-porn fans in my neighborhood to begin with, much less any within range of my wifi signal.
    - rev_bird 11y ago
      There are many, though they all came out of people trying to get away from kiddie porn charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-chil...
  - igivanov 11y ago
    He said later (~2-3 years ago) that he may change his attitude exactly because of possible liability.
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    https://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ https://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify... ? not quite what you're looking for, but effectively the right thing. an ip address does not identify you personally, the same way a drivers license does.
minot 11y ago
This law needs to change. An Internet connection isn't a gun. Just because somebody uses my Internet connection to do something illegal, I didn't do anything illegal.
- scuba7183 11y ago
  Pretty sure that's not how guns work either
  - pluma 11y ago
    If you leave your gun lying around and someone commits a crime with it, I'm pretty sure that's criminal negligence.
    - dzhiurgis 11y ago
      If you leave your gun loaded and your kid shoots someone - yes. If you leave your gun and someone 'steals' it to kill others - I don't think so. It's all about intentions of third party which is one of many paradoxes of the law system.
      - scintill76 11y ago
        Right, but if someone steals your registered gun and uses it in a crime that gets traced to your gun, the police will be visiting you, if not arresting and prosecuting. For this reason, I'd assume it's smart to do what you can to avoid having your gun being used by strangers. For the same reason, you could argue it's smart to not let strangers use your internet connection, even if theoretically you can make a case that you're not legally responsible.
        RyJones 11y ago
        What is a registered gun? I have plenty of guns, none of them are registered.
marssaxman 11y ago
I am fully aware of the risks and I judge them to be negligible in practice. I've been running open wifi at home since 2002.
andrewchambers 11y ago
I have seen an open router which automatically sends the clients through tor first so the activity of free guests is disassociated from your home ip address. You can easily limit the bandwidth guests can use so it is not noticeable to you anyway.

icebraining 11y ago

Do you think Schneier is ignorant of the risks?

bduerst 11y ago
>Certainly this does concern ISPs. Running an open wireless network will often violate your terms of service. But despite the occasional cease-and-desist letter and providers getting pissy at people who exceed some secret bandwidth limit, this isn't a big risk either. The worst that will happen to you is that you'll have to find a new ISP. ^ FTA. Not "ignorant", but more flippant. Not everyone has options when it comes to ISPs.
- DrStalker 11y ago
  Or unlimited bandwidth. There's no way I'd run open WiFi in Australia because I only have a finite amount of downloading I can do, and I pay for the amount I expect to use myself so can't afford other people leeching off my connection.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Bruce Schneier is a very smart guy, but let's not deify him; he can be wrong about things too. For example in the above column he repeats an urban myth: that running an open WiFi access point provides an affirmative defense against prosecution for things like piracy, hacking, or child porn. I call it an urban myth because, personally, I have yet to find a court case in which such an argument was made, let alone one in which it was a determinant in the verdict. It's endlessly repeated online, with seemingly no evidence that it is true. (If someone reading this is aware of such a case, please reply with it! I would love to know.) Also be aware that this was written when WEP was the state of the art in encrypting WiFi, and long before tools like Firesheep were widely available. You can't expect Schneier to make security arguments that will be true forever. Today it is so easy to snoop on open WiFi traffic that any given 11 year old could do--and today WPA2 is sufficently good to stop that. At the same time, Bruce can be really right about things too, like how to properly secure a laptop. If anyone could run open WiFi and still be secure, it's a security expert. As opposed to my dad, who until recently was running Windows XP SP1 on his computer. He benefits from an encrypted WiFi signal as the first layer of the security onion.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  People assert the counterexample, too, but in reality it's hard to find real cases where anything bad happened as a result of running an open wifi network.
  - rev_bird 11y ago
    There are many, though they all came out of people trying to get away from kiddie porn charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-chil...
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      The article mentions three cases, which I would not call "many". I have not been able to find any real numbers on this scenario; only a scattered handful of anecdotes, most of them referring to the same original news articles. I'm not worried. It is extremely unlikely that there are any kiddie-porn fans in my neighborhood to begin with, much less any within range of my wifi signal.
  - rev_bird 11y ago
    There are many, though they all came out of people trying to get away from kiddie porn charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-chil...
- igivanov 11y ago
  He said later (~2-3 years ago) that he may change his attitude exactly because of possible liability.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  https://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ https://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify... ? not quite what you're looking for, but effectively the right thing. an ip address does not identify you personally, the same way a drivers license does.

minot 11y ago

This law needs to change. An Internet connection isn't a gun. Just because somebody uses my Internet connection to do something illegal, I didn't do anything illegal.

scuba7183 11y ago
Pretty sure that's not how guns work either
- pluma 11y ago
  If you leave your gun lying around and someone commits a crime with it, I'm pretty sure that's criminal negligence.
  - dzhiurgis 11y ago
    If you leave your gun loaded and your kid shoots someone - yes. If you leave your gun and someone 'steals' it to kill others - I don't think so. It's all about intentions of third party which is one of many paradoxes of the law system.
    - scintill76 11y ago
      Right, but if someone steals your registered gun and uses it in a crime that gets traced to your gun, the police will be visiting you, if not arresting and prosecuting. For this reason, I'd assume it's smart to do what you can to avoid having your gun being used by strangers. For the same reason, you could argue it's smart to not let strangers use your internet connection, even if theoretically you can make a case that you're not legally responsible.
      - RyJones 11y ago
        What is a registered gun? I have plenty of guns, none of them are registered.

marssaxman 11y ago

I am fully aware of the risks and I judge them to be negligible in practice. I've been running open wifi at home since 2002.

andrewchambers 11y ago

I have seen an open router which automatically sends the clients through tor first so the activity of free guests is disassociated from your home ip address. You can easily limit the bandwidth guests can use so it is not noticeable to you anyway.