Oversharing

Source: http://minimumsecurity.net/blog/2009/08/

Do you sometimes find yourself itching to delete or block some friends or followers for oversharing online? Or, do you sometimes find yourself shocked or at least irked by the type of photos or videos uploaded on social networking sites?

An infamous statement says that "When you have nothing to say, say it on Twitter." Sure, but it definitely does NOT mean that we have to post or upload EVERYTHING on our networking accounts. 

In this age of cyberspace, it seems that online oversharing cannot be helped. However, it is not unwise to think twice before we share anything on the web, especially on social networking sites which do not actually care much about security and privacy. Of course we could simply change our name, make aliases, and the like. We could even choose who to friend, and choose to unfriend some.

But more and more employers are now taking advantage of what Internet offers as an aid in accepting or rejecting applications. In fact, some American employers are now asking their job applicants to log on to their Facebook accounts during the interview. On a different note, legislators may see this as an opportunity to please their constituents as a German bill is already on the pose to solve the problem. But then again, a very few countries would tread the same path as few are as equally daunting as Hitler's home.

So before you post or upload anything online, it would not hurt to think and rethink. Your friends might get a good laugh and get amused, but your employer or potential employers might think otherwise.

(Click here for a related article: about a Swiss woman who lost her job because of being active on Facebook while on sick leave)

- Phebean Belle A. Ramos, entry #7 

Piggybacking and the Wireless Defense

Most new computers are equipped for wireless Internet access, and more and more people are opting for Wi-Fi in their homes. But as the networks become stronger and more prevalent, more of those signals are available outside the home of the subscriber, spilling over into neighbor's house, hallways and the street. Add to this the growing number of cafes and other public "hot spots" that offer Wi-Fi (for wireless fidelity) connections and the ability to buy more powerful antennas that can pick up signals several hundred feet away. The coverage in some places can be pretty near flawless.

Piggybacking, the usually unauthorized tapping into someone else's wireless Internet connection, is no longer the exclusive domain of pilfering computer geeks or shady hackers cruising for unguarded networks. Ordinarily upstanding people are tapping in. Piggybacking is increasingly an issue for people who live in densely populated areas or for anyone clustered in apartment buildings in which WiFi radio waves, with an average range of about 200 feet, can easily bleed through walls, floors and ceilings. Large hotels that offer the service have become bubbling brooks of free access that spill out into nearby homes and restaurants.

And as the practice of using someone else's connection without paying for it expands, it raises the question: Is there anything wrong with that? Will this land the ‘piggybacker’ in jail? The legality of stealing your neighbor's connection is murky at best. Many who piggyback say the practice does not feel like theft because it does not seem to take anything away from anyone. One occasional piggybacker recently compared it to "reading the newspaper over someone's shoulder."

I, for one, admit to have accessed the internet through someone else’s wireless connection when I stayed over at a friend’s house. I checked my mail and then continued to surf the net for several hours after connecting successfully. I did not see anything wrong with it, after all the connection was broadcasting unsecured and I was not downloading large files that can affect the connection’s bandwidth and speed.

But what if the piggybacker uses his neighbor’s connection to download illegal content?

I read in a techie journal that all around Europe there are instances of individuals receiving demands for compensation due to the fact that their open WiFi routers have been used by others to infringe copyright. Good on them, I suppose, that they have enough resources to enable them to trace those illegal downloads to the correct IP address. But what if the owner of the router is not the one who has committed the copyright infringement? Is he still liable for such violation?

Lawyers representing copyright holders have long insisted that it is the responsibility of the bill payer to ensure that nothing illegal happens on his connection by taking technical measures to stop unauthorized access by a 3rd party. However, in Germany, a judge has decided that the owner of an Internet connection is not responsible for copyright infringements carried out without their knowledge on their open WiFi. The same court has already ruled that parents are not responsible for copyright infringements carried out by their children.

This case does not, by any means, provide that the ‘wireless defense’ or piggybacking defense is sufficient to disprove allegations of copyright infringement for those with unsecured WiFi routers. It is a tenuous defense, at best and must be supported by further proof in order to be successful. However, it is a handy excuse when the NBI or the JCIU (if ever the cybercrime bill is passed) come a-knockin.




http://www.privacydigest.com/2008/07/11/open+wifi+network+viable+defense+against+infringement+charge+least+germany