Philosophy isn't an expert-driven discipline; it's just about thinking hard.
You do have an important area of expertise, however: that is, expertise in thinking about computer stuff.
(Yup. That's the sophisticated professorial term for it.)
And that's an important area of expertise. Because you're learning how to do philosophy even as you're learning how to do hacking this semester, and there aren't a lot of people who do both.
I am not THAT tech-savvy, but I am unusually tech-interested among philosophy folks. Many people who do and teach philosophy, *including* people I went to grad school with (i.e. my generation, which is also mostly your generation!), are highly skeptical of computers and would be happy to stick with pen and paper.
Thus, you are in an awesome position to help philosophy: you can formulate a way of thinking about digital-age issues with philosophical rigor.
So let's go!
A really awesome philosophy concept is responsibility. We ask questions like: when do I become responsible for my own actions? Are infants less responsible than grown-ups, and if so, when does responsibility kick in and how and why? How far am I responsible for the actions of people who belong to the same group as me--i.e. my countrymen, my co-religionists, my colleagues, people of my race? Do I need to take responsibility for actions of people who "belong" to me or are associated with me somehow--such as my children, my spouse, my immediate family?
The question of responsibility came up in this case:
SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had an Open Wireless Router
ISP in File-Sharing WiFi Theft
Am I responsible for someone else's actions using my property? If you take my gun and shoot someone, do I bear any responsibility for the killing? If you take my car and get into an accident and kill someone by accident, do I bear any responsibility?
And, the REAL question: if I use your wireless network for nefarious purposes, who is responsible...you, me, or both of us? How is a wireless network like and unlike a car or gun?
And, of course: WHY?
Wow, first post for once (yes, I have been stalking the blog all day waiting for this discussion).
ReplyDeleteConcerning family, I believe that a parent should take responsibility for the actions of children who are too young to understand consequences (and adults/elders who are unable to for whatever reason). That would seem to me to be the only time one should take responsibility for the actions of someone else.
A wireless router is a physical piece of hardware. It can be owned, therefore it is the responsibility of the owner to make at least a basic effort to secure it (there's really no excuse; as lousy as WEP is in terms of security, if you can set up the router you can enable it). One might also say that the owner of the router also 'owns' the signal that is inside the walls of their house or business. I might say that the router owner might possibly be responsible for the actions of any computers inside the building as well, but that can get tricky.
So while the owner of the hardware is responsible for securing it, the person who committed the crime is also responsible for their actions.
Forgot about the car/other property part ^_^ Same as with the router, the owner of the car or gun does bear some responsibility for an accident or if someone else uses it to commit a crime; whether they gave or otherwise allowed someone else to use it, it is theirs.
ReplyDeleteWith a gun it's fairly clear-cut; the owner bears the burden of ensuring it is secure. With a car, it's less obvious; if the pedestrian or other driver was doing something truly idiotic (biking or jaywalking with headphones on, biking at night with no reflectors, etc) they also have a responsibility to not be stupid (but as we probably know some people feel that applies to everyone EXCEPT them).
There are certainly many different circumstances revolving around responsibility. The situation may depend on specific actions that took place around a specific event.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the question on whether or not one should take responsibility for someone else's actions if he/she were to use your gun and shoot someone. Should you bear blame for that killing?
I see two possible answers here..
1. Suppose you went off to run errands and knowingly left your gun (license to carry)in a car glove-box. Then you realize your car was just stolen. An hour later there was a homicide and the suspect that stole your car used your gun to kill someone.
Should you take responsibility for that? Yes!! Should you face first degree murder? No..you didn't pull the trigger.
Should you face some kind of negligence charge? Yes!! The reason why is because you failed to lock up the gun properly in a GUN SAFE!
2. Suppose you did have your gun locked in a safe and you were away on vacation. Your house was just robbed and a thief managed to open the safe. Then the burglar used that gun to commit murder.
Should you take responsibility for that killing? Absolutely not!
Should you face some kind of negligence charge? No..simply because you had the gun locked up properly, your home was broken into and you had the proper carrying permit. End of case!
Another question surrounding responsibility based on if I take your car and get into an accident. I then accidentally killed someone, should you bear any responsibility?
Again, it depends...
1. If I had no license and you let me borrow the car knowing my license was suspended..Yes you should be responsible.
Should you face murder charges? No, you were not the one driving.
2. You know I have no license, but I take your car anyways and without your permission or without you knowing about it.
Should you be responsible for vehicular homicide? No.
Should you face vehicular negligence charges? No, simply because you did not give that person any consent to take your car. End of case!
This last question is a good one and I love debating about it.
The question: if I use your wireless network for evil purposes, who is responsible?
This is very debatable and I see two things here..
1. The wifi owner may not be so tech savvy to encrypt the router. Therefore, he or she may not be held accountable based on Computer Forensic evidence. There are ways to see who did what, when, where, why and how?
2. If the wifi owner knows about the open network, he or she may be doing something illegal online and will use this open access as a defense to cover up his/her tracks. In other words, "Hey! It wasn't me, my network is open and it could have been anyone!! Well if that's the case, then Computer Forensics will be involved in this matter to find the true evidence...everything leaves a digital trail!!
Regardless, it is illegal to PIGGYBACK (jurisdictions may vary) ride on someone else's internet without the owner's consent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggybacking_%28Internet_access%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking
http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelessfaqs/f/legal_free_wifi.htm
On a final note, when you walk into a Cyber Cafe, normally access is open, but there's some kind of "Agreement Acceptance" you have to click on before going online.
But if there is no Agreement Acceptance page, that open network is still tracking what your MAC address is doing. That MAC address is a specific hardware ID based on your system.
I am Big Brother...I'm watching you :)
Response to Observant Commuter...
ReplyDeleteMost less tech savvy people have no idea to set it to WPA2 and some of their old devices may not support WPA2. Therefore, they have no choice but to use WEP encryption.
But Piggybacking on someone else's network is illegal, they may not even know about it and should not be blamed for actions committed by the intruder.
Rob here
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone is responsible for their on own actions. You are responsible for securing your property. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse. Any responsible gun owner knows the rules and in this state it is not easy to get a license. Securing your wireless router might be a little more challenging for some people, but with Google , YouTube or whatever other else you can find on the internet there should be no excuse to have at least wpa on you wireless router.
WEP is preferable to nothing at all; someone who just decides to hop on an open network and pull funny stuff "because I can" might not have the resources or time/patience to break even that. Dedicated criminals will always find a way to get in (it's the covering-tracks part some have trouble with).
ReplyDeleteNow, if the owner of the router has had it hijacked repeatedly yet still refuses to get any real security...sadly people can't be prosecuted for stupidity.
For the most part, I agree with what Orlando has said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure on what the process to own a gun is, but I am fairly certain that you are instructed on how to responsibly handle one, along with the dangers involved with failing to do so. I think if you handle a gun without care, knowing these dangers, you are being negligent and thus you are responsible for what happens because of your negligence. As Orlando says, I don't think this person has committed murder, nor do I think any sort of punishment for this person should be as harsh as the punishment for murder, but I believe revoking a person's license is definitely in order.
In addition to what Orlando said about the cars, I think an additional scenario applies...
If I lend a person with a proper license my car and that person accidentally(or purposely? I guess it doesn't matter) kills somebody, am I responsible? Personally, I don't think so. I was not the driver, and I had no reason to believe anything like that was going to occur. If whoever I give the car to was drunk, and I knew this, then I think considerable blame falls upon me for allowing somebody who legally and ethically shouldn't be driving to drive.
Now then, for "computer stuff"...
In response to Isabel: I do not think we should be punishing people who do not sufficiently lock down their routers. It is harder a task for some people than you make it seem. Shoot, I'm not even sure my mom could point to the router if I asked her to, let alone access the router's wireless security configuration page(That's what I'm for! :) ). I doubt she understands what risks are involved with an unencrypted network, either.
And how can we hold account holders responsible, when even locked down networks are susceptible to being broken into(both WEP and WPA/WPA2)? It sounds like the only solution to ensure no crimes get pinned on me is to not have a wireless network at all, and I think that is incredibly backwards.
So, to tie things together, I don't think it is fair to hold an account owner responsible for crimes committed on their open networks without more conclusive proof that they are actually the criminals. The sole person responsible for the crime is the one who committed it, and nobody else.
If we're going to treat routers the same way we treat guns, and even cars, then why not give them out only to qualified individuals after educating them on proper and responsible use. And where do we draw the line? That butter knife could be used to commit a crime, perhaps we should issue licenses for butter knives... etc.
Also, I forgive in advance for any spelling or English errors.. it's late.. or early, I guess.. :p
I thought that the owner of a car is in some way responsible for anything that happens if someone else (at least someone who's not listed on the insurance) is driving...
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying to hold the owner of an open network completely responsible as an accomplice, just that they should understand why it would be in their interests to secure it.
Orlando, I was about to write out pretty much exactly what you wrote out.:P
ReplyDeleteSo now a little change up, if I’m an irresponsible gun owner and let’s say I leave loaded weapons just laying around my house like a dumbass. Now let’s say my nephew comes over, your average 10 year old boy. Now my nephew finds a gun and accidentally kills himself or my sister with it. Morally I caused that death, legally I caused that death. Something in the area of Voluntary Manslaughter, due to reckless endangerment and conduct, for the death I would legally be responsible for.
Now let’s say to have a wireless network there is a law that says you have to reasonably secure a wireless network to have one and you failed to even try to secure the network you are partially responsible due to negligence.
Well in the short the difference between a wireless network and a gun and a car is that you can pretty easily cause death with a gun and a car. An unsecured wireless network can cause a lot of damage but for the most part it is highly unlikely to cause death.
In response to Sben to get any gun license in this state you need to take a firearms safety course, which covers the basic laws, and important safety rules (how to operate the safety other basic gun rules).
An open router may not kill anyone (it MIGHT if a cracker uses one near a hospital to break into their systems, but that's a big if), but it can cause a lot of chaos (and in the child-porn cases, possibly screw up people's lives pretty bad). I seem to recall that there was a law being kicked around that would hold owners responsible for activity on an unsecured network...
ReplyDeleteTo misquote a slogan: "Routers don't crack systems, people crack systems."
Anonymous Rob (and everyone, to some degree): WHY? Why am I responsible for securing my property? Do I bear any guilt if my property isn't secure and you do bad stuff with it? If so, why, if not, why not? Philosophy lives in the why!
ReplyDeletelol, Isabel, you made my day--I love that you're stalking the blog eager for this discussion!
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the question of do I bear responsibility for someone else's action's with my property, I think the answer is no a great majority of the time. I think that as long as you were following the proper laws when it comes to owning a gun or a vehicle for instance then it is not your fault if someone stole it and committed a crime with it.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the question about who is to blame if a wireless connection is compromised and used to commit criminal acts, I think the person stealing the connection is to blame. I believe this based on the fact that if i left my car unlocked in my drive way one night with the keys in the ignition it doesn't mean you can take it. It just means i'm dumb. Just like people who don't secure their internet. They still pay the bill and technically that physical connection to the internet is theirs. When it comes to breaking into locked connections that is obviously the hackers fault again, even if they didn't use the best method of security. For instance if i put a lock on my shed and your able to smash it off with a hammer is it my fault because i should have bought a bigger and better lock?
Response to Observant Commuter...
ReplyDeleteMost less tech savvy people have no idea to set it to WPA2 and some of their old devices may not support WPA2. Therefore, they have no choice but to use WEP encryption.
But Piggybacking on someone else's network is illegal, they may not even know about it and should not be blamed for actions committed by the intruder.
^^ In response, I completely agree with you. I don't feel that just because someone may not have a password or encryption to secure their router doesn't mean they want to be connected to. Unless they put out a sign that says free WiFi, it is illegal to connect to them and the outsider connecting is to blame.
I'm going to have to disagree with you J.Sac, failure to properly secure a car does leave you somewhat responsible, at least in the legal and civil sense.
ReplyDeleteEG Poskus v. Lombardo’s of Randolph 1996 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court “if a person negligently makes the theft of a motor vehicle possible, it would be reasonably foreseeable in certain circumstances that a third person could be harmed by the thief’s negligent operation of the stolen vehicle. In certain situations, therefore, the question of reasonable foreseeability will be for the [jury].” This case did involve a guy leaving not only the keys in a van, but the van running, the doors unlocked and the van unattended. And yes this is going back to the law.
This oddly comes to mind all of a sudden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U
Something I feel we haven't really focused on is the inherent danger of a gun or a car compared to the inherent danger of an unsecured wireless network. Both cars and guns are inherently dangerous - it takes very little effort to use them for malicious purposes. Nearly anybody can cause damage with a gun or a car. This is not the case for an unsecured wireless network. Using an unsecured network to cause mayhem (such as hacking into a hospital, as Isabel mentioned earlier) doesn't strike me as a crime of opportunity. It's not something you can accidentally do, either. Hacking into a hospital is something deliberately done, not accidentally, where getting into a car accident or shooting somebody is likely to happen, considering most thieves likely lack proper licenses or training.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, unsecured networks are everywhere. Why does it really matter if my network is secure or not, when a potential hacker can just as easily walk down the street and find an unsecured network? If a hacker has this option, is securing my network really preventing a crime from occurring? Somebody interested in an unsecured gun or car does not have this option.
On top of all this, as mentioned several times throughout this discussion, encrypted networks are not a 100% guarantee that unauthorized users will be kept out. The people we're worried will hack into hospitals probably wont have much trouble hacking into somebody's secured network... so...
Because nobody commits malicious cybercrime accidentally, and because securing my network isn't really preventing a crime from occurring(and instead just forcing our hypothetical hacker to walk around until he finds another suitable network), I don't think we can really blame anybody for what happens on their network because it hasn't been properly secured.
Hope that all makes sense.
I admit to leeching a neighbor's wireless signal when my ISP was being slow in installing, but all I did was hop on, download my email and hop off.
ReplyDeleteSecuring a network may not prevent a crime from occurring, but it will make it slightly more difficult (which may increase the likelihood of being caught), and whoever they end up leeching off of could have the knowhow and/or legal muscle to stop them.
JSac, I was employed in a store once where the owner stupidly had an open network for customers which was not separated from the internal stuff (inventory, register, customer database, etc)...the sensitive databases didn't even have a separate password. I discovered this (I was using my laptop on the open network for an unrelated project) and notified him...the reply I got was something along the lines of "they should know not to poke around in there".
Something did happen, I was fired because he thought the only way to access the databases was through the office computer and didn't know about server logs (I had an idea who did it, but the suspect was a semiregular customer which according to him Could Never Happen).
legally, as a lone adult with no children or legally joined partners, I am only responsible for myself. Does this mean if my common law husband decided to commit fraud and I was aware (yet it was not provable that I was) that I would hold no responsibility for any fallout? Ethically, I feel I would have a certain responsibility. If I did not know? No, I wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteNow, it is easily proved that I am tech savvy. So I am pretty sure if I left my router open I would be allowing myself to be party to any misdeeds...I did, for a while, on purpose, in a galaxy long long ago, leave an open signal - trying to be a nice person and share, even naming the network "Share my Wifi") ...yeah, I'd be held at least somewhat party to such misdeeds.
But let's say my dad did the same. He can't even turn ON a laptop, let alone use one, but let's say he learned ho and then went wireless, and had someone help him get it all hooked up. Said person didn't bother changing defaults, because my dad would NEVER remember the password. Would my dad be responsible for crimes on his wi-fi? I suspect he has a lot less of a chance, being 75 and it being an easy task to prove how non-tech savvy he is...including documenting past online activity, from this theoretical laptop.
And I agree, there are about a million various open networks, everywhere. LEt's say I want to torrent, and not use my own network nor bother with using TOR or a proxy. My neighborhood, within a 4 block walk, has 17 open and usable networks. I can use a program like WeFi, setting it to automatically log on to every passing signal. I can walk down the block, and go from signal to signal. Are all 17 people going to be held liable?