Broadband News
News, views and analysis
Clouded Wi-Fi laws raining on Digital Britain
19 Aug 2009 | 16.37 Europe/London
The lack of legal transparency when it comes to the wireless sharing of Internet access is restricting digital inclusion, according to the author of a new report. Mac Síthigh, who's just published his academic study "Law in the Last Mile: Sharing Internet Access Through Wi-Fi," says that's playing into the hands of business - the ISPs - rather than the citizens of the future Digital Britain.
"Digital inclusion is a government policy and rightly so," says Mr. Síthigh,a lecturer in IT and Internet Law at the University of East Anglia. "People may not have broadband in every road, particularly in rural or isolated areas, and costs of a good connection remain high, so sharing Internet access is recognised as a great way of filling in the gaps." But while sharing wireless access points (WAPs) could be "of benefit to society," he says the vague current legal framework is deterring people from doing so.
"Shared Internet access has potential social benefits, but it's harder to encourage people to take part if the legalities are unclear," he continues. "Furthermore, local communities trying to use wireless access to extend connectivity have faced objections from established industries that this is anti-competitive or a breach of contract. If the legal environment was more favourable to sharing it would play an important part in achieving the Digital Britain aim of inclusion and social goals of increased access."
But for Síthigh sharing Internet connections does not appear to be in the best interests of those "established industries" - specifically, the ISPs, who have "obvious, selfish reasons to discourage any sharing." To put people off sharing their WAPs, he says ISPs use a sort of carrot and stick approach, with the stick being their terms of service agreements and the subsequent punishments they can bestow. The carrot is more subtle: the ISPs work to convince their customers that by locking up their networks, they're safe from any security threats. "A domestic network is thus sanitised and enables the household to buy more services (or make good use of existing services) without challenging the business model of the provider," he says.
And it appears Internet security companies are willing to back up the ISPs, who are effectively sending customers their way. Here's an excerpt of a press release from anti-virus makers Sophos:
Síthigh also argues that "although it's unlikely widespread prosecutions will take place" people may unknowingly be breaking the law by using unsecured wireless networks. The popularity of laptops and smaller Wi-Fi devices has turned many people into nomads seeking unsecured WAPs (as anyone who owns - or merely knows someone who owns - an iPhone can testify). But unless they're using designated wireless hotspots - and BT says it now has half a million of them around the UK - these people could be making criminals of themselves.
Mr. Síthigh has identified instances where people have been arrested and convicted under section 125 of the Communications Act 2003, which legislates for those who both "dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service" and and do so "with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service." While such legislation may have been drawn up to deal with hacking and other serious offences, "People have been convicted for using networks without stealing passwords, breaching security or engaging in other antisocial activities."
Of course, some people leave their wireless networks open by choice, and some leave them open because they don't have the technical nouse to do otherwise. But when it comes to digital inclusion, it appears none of the key players would champion unsecured networks - certainly not the ISPs, nor the film and music companies (for whom it would add the problem of anonymity to the piracy issue). And the Government's got enough on its plate when it comes to the existing provisions of Digital Britain. Ultimately it appears Síthigh's academic report may end up being just that - academic.
Further details at [Science Daily], or you can read the report itself.
"Digital inclusion is a government policy and rightly so," says Mr. Síthigh,a lecturer in IT and Internet Law at the University of East Anglia. "People may not have broadband in every road, particularly in rural or isolated areas, and costs of a good connection remain high, so sharing Internet access is recognised as a great way of filling in the gaps." But while sharing wireless access points (WAPs) could be "of benefit to society," he says the vague current legal framework is deterring people from doing so.
"Shared Internet access has potential social benefits, but it's harder to encourage people to take part if the legalities are unclear," he continues. "Furthermore, local communities trying to use wireless access to extend connectivity have faced objections from established industries that this is anti-competitive or a breach of contract. If the legal environment was more favourable to sharing it would play an important part in achieving the Digital Britain aim of inclusion and social goals of increased access."
But for Síthigh sharing Internet connections does not appear to be in the best interests of those "established industries" - specifically, the ISPs, who have "obvious, selfish reasons to discourage any sharing." To put people off sharing their WAPs, he says ISPs use a sort of carrot and stick approach, with the stick being their terms of service agreements and the subsequent punishments they can bestow. The carrot is more subtle: the ISPs work to convince their customers that by locking up their networks, they're safe from any security threats. "A domestic network is thus sanitised and enables the household to buy more services (or make good use of existing services) without challenging the business model of the provider," he says.
And it appears Internet security companies are willing to back up the ISPs, who are effectively sending customers their way. Here's an excerpt of a press release from anti-virus makers Sophos:
Stealing Wi-Fi internet access may feel like a victimless crime, but it deprives ISPs of revenue. Furthermore, if you've hopped onto your next door neighbors' wireless broadband connection to illegally download movies and music from the net, chances are that you are also slowing down their internet access and impacting on their download limit.
Síthigh also argues that "although it's unlikely widespread prosecutions will take place" people may unknowingly be breaking the law by using unsecured wireless networks. The popularity of laptops and smaller Wi-Fi devices has turned many people into nomads seeking unsecured WAPs (as anyone who owns - or merely knows someone who owns - an iPhone can testify). But unless they're using designated wireless hotspots - and BT says it now has half a million of them around the UK - these people could be making criminals of themselves.
Mr. Síthigh has identified instances where people have been arrested and convicted under section 125 of the Communications Act 2003, which legislates for those who both "dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service" and and do so "with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service." While such legislation may have been drawn up to deal with hacking and other serious offences, "People have been convicted for using networks without stealing passwords, breaching security or engaging in other antisocial activities."
Of course, some people leave their wireless networks open by choice, and some leave them open because they don't have the technical nouse to do otherwise. But when it comes to digital inclusion, it appears none of the key players would champion unsecured networks - certainly not the ISPs, nor the film and music companies (for whom it would add the problem of anonymity to the piracy issue). And the Government's got enough on its plate when it comes to the existing provisions of Digital Britain. Ultimately it appears Síthigh's academic report may end up being just that - academic.
Further details at [Science Daily], or you can read the report itself.