full-disclosure - Wi-fi. Approaching customers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4238471D.1020903@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (bkfsec)
Subject: Wi-fi. Approaching customers

Soderland, Craig wrote:

>Now here's the .90 cent question: 
>
>If ISP's are not liable for the content across them, and cannot be held
>liable. 
>
>And you run an Open WIFI network... 
>
>Aren't you in effect an ISP Albeit a free one? 
>
>And if you are an ISP, then wouldn't you, not be liable for content sent
>across your network. 
>
>  
>
That's a distinction I personally wouldn't rely on.

First, it depends on the local laws and jurisdictions.  That may be true 
for some countries, but not others.

Second, in the US we call them common carriers.  Via the FCC they aren't 
liable since they can't restrict usage in the first place.  I believe 
that you need to qualify to be a common carrier, though I'm not sure 
what is involved in that qualification, whether it's automatic or not.  
I can say that I don't personally believe that that distinction would be 
created by simply supplying (whether known or unknown) the internet 
connection.  If it did, then I would become a common carrier for my 
girlfriend since my hardware and connection supplies her computer with 
internet access.  I'm not sure how that would fly in court.  I suspect 
it wouldn't if it could be shown that I had the capability and belief 
that she should be blocked from doing something.  It all falls back to 
the "reasonable man" test.

Third, since the connection is being made unbeknownst to the supplier, 
general disclaimers do not apply - negating that level of legal 
disassociation.

So, while it's an interesting concept, I'm not sure that I'd rely on it 
if I were a business. 

             -Barry