/Per
I don't know about in Zürich, but in the US I don't think the liability is significant.
Are you talking about the liability of being investigated.
That's the part of the problem, yes. There is however also a possiblity of an individual or a company being accused of having facilitated an unlawful activity by a third party without being an actual telecoms provider. When you're not an ISP or similar, all activity on your network is essentially your responsibility.
Never heard of that in the US and I work in the field of computer forensics. Meaning I know the law fairly well but IANAL. If true, then every coffee shop, McDonalds, bookstore, hotel etc. would have liability for the activities of their wireless users. That just does not seem to be true, or they would not be offering wireless connections. One can certainly get pulled into an investigation, interviewed, subpoenaed, issued interrogatories, etc. but not actual responsibility. Mind you in the US, if you become _aware_ of child porn(CP), you must notify law enforcement (LE). I don't know the exact details, but certainly if a corporate employee became aware of same, they would have a legal obligation to notify LE. Basically in the US CP is considered an ongoing crime, so even attorney client privilege does not trump the legal requirement to notify LE.
FYI: I'm aware of a situation where an apartment dweller had a wide open wireless. His neighbor used it to hack into his home PC. And then stored illicit images there. When the police came, yes they first arrested the owner of the PC. Further investigation showed he had nothing to with storing the images, so he was not convicted of child porn activity.
Sounds like just the kind of thing that would be very difficult to deal with: "I didn't download those pictures and I didn't store them on my PC".
Agreed, but my wireless subnet is firewalled off from my other subnets in exactly the same way that I firewall off the rest of the Internet. And I have zero assets on the wireless subnet that someone could try to hack. So physical proximity does not make it any easier to get data from the unsecure subnet to my secure subnets. In my case the wireless router has an actual routable Internet IP, so it lives directly on the Internet. As expected the wireless router does NAT,etc. but that is only to offer limited to anyone borrowing my wireless. My opinion for business need is that if you treat the wireless subnet the same way you treat a direct Internet connection, then you should be safe. ie. connect the wireless to the unsecure Internet, not to the secure side of your firewall. If you want wireless to be semi secure, then create a DMZ and put it in there, but never connect it to a secure network. Use VPNs etc. if you need connectivity.
/Per
Greg -- Greg Freemyer Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org