News.com ran an extremely FUDdy story about open wireless, quoting an AT&T spokesperson who warns that individuals who run open wireless access points will be liable for crimes committed by wardrivers and passers-by who use their access-points to commit crimes or engage in infringing file-sharing.
It's not actually true, though. As my colleague Fred "Baron" von Lohmann posted to the Pho list:
Hey, it seems to me that anyone who runs an open wireless gateway would be
protected from copyright liability arising out of the activities of their
neighbors by the DMCA 512(a) safe harbor (the same one that AT&T itself
relies on).So long as you simply pass bits for someone else, without changing or
storing them, you're not liable if the bits are infringing. See 17 USC
512(a). (Before you start going on about "notice and takedown" and copyright
agents — none of that mumbo jumbo applies to the 512(a) safe harbor, 'cuz
the ISPs had enough clout to make it that way).So AT&T is blowing smoke — it's immune from liability for carrying the
bits, and so is the subscriber who is running the wireless gateway.I've been saying it for some time now — soon we'll *all* be ISPs, and all
entitled to the same protections that AOL legislated for itself over the
last few years.
Ain't that the sweetest? All the breaks that the ISP lobbies have secured for themselves in Congress apply to anyone who provides access to the Internet, including folks like you and me!
The most insidious thing about this genre of anti-WiFi FUD is that it attacks the idea of anonymity online, as though allowing people to anonymously access the Internet was an irresponsible activity that can only serve the interests of terrorists, child pornographers and warez d00ds.
In fact, anonymous speech is Constitutionally protected in the USA. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Whistle-blowers, kids who are curious about STDs and dissidents (just to name three) rely on anonymity to participate in the democratic discourse.
(Thanks, Fred!)
