From 1st October 2007, manufacturers must place warning labels
on all equipment capable of receiving Wi-Fi signals, according to
the new state law. These can take the form of box stickers, special
notification in setup software, notification during the router
setup or through automatic securing of the connection. One warning
sticker must be positioned so that it must be removed by a consumer
before the product can be used.
The warnings would have to contain information on how to secure
files, folders and connections. Wireless internet connections can
be used by anyone with Wi-Fi capability within the range of the
transmitter unless they are secured. While many users have
traditionally shared their connections, leaving them open for
others to use, other users are becoming increasingly concerned
about the implications of 'piggybacking' on networks.
The legislation acknowledges disagreement in the US as to
whether it is legal for someone to use another person's unprotected
Wi-Fi connection. "While Section 502 of the Penal Code prohibits
the unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and
computer data, authorized use is determined by the specific
circumstances of the access," it states. "There are also federal
laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act […]that prohibit
the intentional access to a computer without authorization."
Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM and a technology lawyer
with Pinsent Masons, said that companies are not required to
provide such warning labels under UK law, but said the position
about using another's connection is clearer.
"The Communications Act includes an offence of dishonestly
obtaining an electronic communications service 'with intent to
avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that
service'," said Robertson. "We've already seen a conviction in the
UK for using someone else's Wi-Fi connection without
authority."
In July 2005, Gregory Straszkiewicz became the first person to
convicted under this provision. He was fined £500 at London's
Islewoth Crown Court. The Act provides for a maximum sentence of
five years in prison and a fine.
There can be unusual benefits to leaving a network open,
however. One resident of Palm Desert, California recently forced
the music industry to drop its case against her partly because her
wireless network was left open.
Tammie Marson was accused by record labels Virgin, Sony BMG,
Arista, Universal and Warner Brothers of illegally sharing
copyrighted music files. She argued that because anyone in the
vicinity of her house could have used her connection, the record
labels could not rely on the fact that her connection was used, but
would have to prove that she was the one actually performing the
actions.
Marson's lawyer, Seyamack Kouretchian of Coast Law Group, told
OUT-LAW Radio that evidence that
Marson's connection was used was not enough. "The best that they
could do, the absolute best, was prove that the music was on a
computer that had accessed the internet through her internet
connection," he said. "You had neighbours who would have had access
to her internet connection over a wireless router so it could have
been anybody."
"The record label got in the neighbourhood of the infringement
but they need to prove who the infringer is, they have to do a lot
better than just prove that there was some infringement in this
neighbourhood and therefore hold Tammie responsible for it," he
said.
Kouretchian was speaking to OUT-LAW Radio, the weekly technology
law podcast.
