Make:

Fellow Make readers,

I realize this article is the sort of sensationalist rehetoric that defines technology in America today. As usual, the engineers offer people a new enabling tool and society and dog all run around and attempt to club one another over the head with this new tool.

However, you will recall a nasty event that came to pass back in 1993 when the FCC stopped approving radio devices that were capable of monitoring cellular telephone frequencies in an attempt to plug a technology weakness. This legislation attempt, like so many that have come after it to solve technology problems with law, has essentially curtailed engineers' abilities in the pursuit of protecting the ignorance of the public (and perhaps protecting the government from the public.)

It is not outside the realm of possibility that the use of WiFi as a public enabler will become significant encumbered as a result of this type of legal interpretation. Consequently, we should roll this type of discussion into our overall influence on laws pertaining to computer access. While we struggle to protect our servers from malicious activity, we should also take the time to ensure we're not putting shackles on other goals.

From a letter I sent to the Alex Leary, the journalist who posted the original article:
---

Mr. Leary:

I'm writing in regard to your article published July 4th regarding Wi-Fi.

Can you keep an eye on the progress of this case? I would be
interested to see whether Dinon is acquitted on the grounds that
authorization is implied by virtue of the access point being
configured as open or if he is found guilty.

Authorization is difficult to assess as there are services that offer
open Internet service, such as coffee shops looking to increase
business, where the only determination of authorization is by the
presence of signs on the wall. One can then, correctly, assume that
all access points that are not protected by some form of encryption or
password are offered freely by the owner.

I myself offer an open access point to the neighborhood. I do assume
a level of risk by doing so, but conversely I enable a level of public
enjoyment around the block. ISPs such as Speakeasy.net endorse this.

While this is a grey area of social consciousness, it is exactly the
sort of dialog that would benefit the public good. Do we want to
build networks that enable citizens or do we want to build jungles
full of potential jail time?

Who has the burden of determining whether that radio signal is
intentionally or unintentionally shared?

Sincerely,
Bill Ward

Reply to this comment

Apologies for the complete lack of formatting, previewing and proofing.
...back to work...
Bill

Reply to this comment