On 1 May 2012 11:04, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 May 2012 10:35, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
More than anything it depends on the context; if
you are talking about a
small endeavour at, say, a meeting venue you're probably alright using an
ad-hoc setup. But if you are talking an entirely public network then things
are more complex.
To be honest; once you are at that level you should be talking to a
professional company anyway, as supplying Wifi of that sort is a non-trivial
technical exercise. And they will know exactly what is required.
I note also the Hack Day Manifesto (really a how-to), which goes into
quite some detail on the technical side (though not the legal one):
http://hackdaymanifesto.com/
As one of the Hack Day Manifesto drafting cabal, I'll note why we didn't...
Firstly, because we aren't lawyers. If you are a lawyer, the Hack Day
Manifesto is on Github, and, as we say on Wikipedia, "anyone can
edit".
Secondly, because what we do know about the law on wifi, it's actually
very difficult to know what is required. When the Digital Economy Act
was up for debate, one of the provisions, if I recall correctly, would
require closing of open wifi following repeated copyright infringement
complaints, but whether that is going to be required is something I
believe we are still waiting upon from the official Ofcom guidance
(not to go political, but having a law where you basically pass it
without reading it, then have someone else work out exactly what it
means is a hermeneutic strategy that should make postmodernists very
happy and anyone who values transparency and deliberation not so
happy).
There are still some very strange questions about whether or not using
a weak protection system for wifi would count - WEP is now trivially
crackable, and WPA rather than WPA2 is also trivial to crack...
requiring WPA2 means certain older devices can't connect to wifi.
It'd certainly be useful for everybody involved if we could have some
lawyers work out exactly what the current civil and criminal penalties
and issues of concern are around open wifi usage.
I say that as someone who lives right out in the countryside and,
partly on principle, keeps his wifi completely open. Why? Because I
believe that if you should be unfortunate enough to find yourself
standing outside my house, the least you should be able to do is check
Google Maps to find your way to where you are going. Given that we
have really bad GPS reception, almost no mobile reception, certainly
no 3G reception, I see almost no benefit in preventing people from
leeching a little bandwidth from me... on the basis that if I were
momentarily outside their house, I'd really like to be able to do
likewise. Share and share alike, be the change you want to see and all
that.
Security expert Bruce Schneier does similarly:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html
Of course, if some bastard tracks me down, camps outside my house and
uses my wifi to upload his kiddy porn stash, nuclear bomb construction
instructions or the contents of their 'Lady Gaga' CD-RW to Wikileaks,
and I end up in jail, that would suck quite considerably. Hence why
having some guidance from actual lawyers would be quite useful.
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>