In United States v. Ahrndt, No. 08-cr-468 (D. Ore. Jan. 28, 2010), a federal trial court held that a child pornography suspect had no constitutionally protected privacy right in the files found on his personal computer, stored in a shared iTunes folder fed by a Limewire account, accessible by a neighbor who was piggybacking on his unsecured wireless network.

via TechLaw: Court Finds Constitutional Significance in Defendant’s Failure to Password-Protect Home Wireless Network. (I recommend you read the whole piece by Thomas O’Toole.)

The neighbor connected to the open wireless account, opened iTunes, and found child pornography shared by the (now convicted) defendant. A police officer who responded to her call guided her through opening one shared file, and saw child pornography. The police them proceeded to gather details of exactly who’s network it was and obtained a warrant — in turn discovering more child pornography.

The defendant argued it was an illegal search by the police and the warrant should be thrown out, since the initial finding by the officer violated his 4th amendment reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court said, no, if you leave your wireless router unsecured, your expectation of privacy is much lower. People routinely use unsecured networks of others, says the court, and setting a password to prevent this is clearly laid out in the instructions (in this case, Belkin’s). What’s more, if you have iTunes sharing turned on, you shouldn’t expect those files broadcast to everyone on your network to be private.

I agree with O’Toole that none of this breaks new Constitutional ground. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it seems like the judge “gets it” with regard to technology (nice to see).

It does also imply that an open wireless network is not like a closed (but unlocked) door. Accessing it is not equivalent to breaking and entering. (I think this is the correct view of things, myself.)

O’Toole ends with a warning that you should password-protect your network if you want 4th Amendment protections. I would add that, if you choose to share your wireless network, then make sure you secure your computers within that network. The lack of a password for the network was only one factor — sharing iTunes files publicly also contributed.

Extending this argument, if you have private files, you should be able to get 4th Amendment protection by password-protecting them at any level (encryption is a practical protection, but shouldn’t be necessary for legal protection — if one extends from this ruling). Thus, you could share your iTunes library and — provided you password protect your financial documents — still have Constitutional protections for those documents (but not the music or videos you are sharing).

Seems common sensical, but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily “the law” everywhere! This was only a federal district court in Oregon, after all, and isn’t binding precedent (though it may be persuasive). But it’s an intelligent decision.

SSRN-The Failure of Public WiFi by Eric Fraser:

This short piece describes the failure of the widespread plans to provide public wireless internet access. It identifies three interrelated types of causes for the near-universal failure of these ambitious plans: regulatory, technical, and economic.

As the article points out, WiFi — while incredibly successful for constrained-area use, as in homes and businesses — has not so far proven very successful when deployed across larger areas. There was once talk of police agencies and similar being able to switch to lower cost, more flexible Wifi-based systems for use in cars, but that has generally not happened. Instead, many are using 3G cellular systems, which at least are also commercial, off-the-shelf sort of solutions (King County, Washington, for example, puts laptops with 3G wireless cards in its police cars).

Google’s experiment near its HQ is an exception, and I think “Free the Net” in San Francisco might qualify as well. Neither are municipally funded, however, and the model has not really been exportable across larger areas.

Ultimately, WiFi is an small-scale system, ideal for its purpose, and fun to extend to larger areas. WiMax and 3G are much more scalable, and do not need to rely on so many access points. The density required is simply too high to cover large areas — I have sometimes had trouble covering an entire house effectively, much less a city block!

On the supply side, the systems simply could not deliver what proponents promised. Because of WiFi’s technical and regulatory limitations on frequency and power output, blanketing a city proved to be prohibitively expensive. Outdoor areas and a few buildings could be wired for wireless access, but no one could deliver anywhere-internet using WiFi. Signals from streets could not penetrate large buildings, and property rights prevented municipalities from installing the required tens of thousands of access points inside private buildings throughout a municipality. As a result, public WiFi networks could be used indoors in only a few areas, or in many outdoor locations.

Sadly, 3G especially comes with costs that many had hoped WiFi might overcome. It is a “top-down” networking solution, provided by big companies, and comes with significant bandwidth charges. WiFi seemed like a wonderful, “bottom-up” approach that leveraged existing wired bandwidth without added additional wireless costs. It still has potential in many circumstances to be useful, whether it be for cafe settings, easily-deployed home networking, in rural areas without signal-blocking obstacles, or even unlicensed long-range point-to-point networks.

Fraser’s article provides more in-depth analysis, including an explanation of the physics at work, the business models, and more ideas about why public WiFi has not succeeded. I recommend it.

(Thanks to the Legal Theory Blog for pointing me to this.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sprint, Clearwire and WiMax
• Meraki “Free the Network” San Francisco Project Grows
• Two Approaches to Community WiFi Sharing

A who’s who of technology and telecommunications companies announced
Wednesday that it intended to build the first of a new generation of nationwide
wireless data networks.

The consortium includes a disparate group of partners: Sprint Nextel, Google, Intel, Comcast, Time Warner and Clearwire.

The partners have put the value of the deal at $14.5 billion, a figure
that includes radio spectrum and equipment provided by Sprint Nextel and
Clearwire, and $3.2 billion from the others involved.

CNet News.com writes:

In many ways the new venture is a win-win situation for Sprint and Clearwire,
which, if truth be told, had no other option than to team up. Sprint, which has
steadily been losing customers after its failed 2005 merger with Nextel, gets to
shed an expensive and resource sucking venture. And Clearwire, which hasn’t been
profitable since it went public a year ago, gets more spectrum assets and
capital to build the network. Wall Street had been getting fed up with each
company, so a deal to merge the entities was a no-brainer.

But as someone who has watched big technology mergers form and unwind over the past decade, I’m not convinced that the new Clearwire will actually make it in the
end. That said, I think at the very least the new company will spur quicker innovation of broadband wireless technology and force operators like AT&T
and Verizon Wireless to deploy their own networks more quickly. In this respect,
consumers will likely have Sprint and Clearwire to thank for helping bring true
wireless broadband services to a plethora of consumer electronics devices.

But the big question yet to be answered is whether the new Clearwire will be the company delivering that network and whether WiMax, its technology of
choice, will be used to do it.

I’m sure we’ll see more of this soon. I like the idea of WiMax (2 mile range!), but I do wonder about two issues: (1) can a company make money nationally on this? and (2) let’s see some more competition around a single standard!

Webware — Starbucks ditches T-Mobile for AT&T:

Ubiquitous caffeine conglomerate Starbucks has ended its Wi-Fi partnership with T-Mobile in favor of one with AT&T.

Under the earlier plan with T-Mobile, Starbucks customers needed a paid subscription to access the in-store Wi-Fi service, and T-Mobile HotSpot subscribers will continue to have access to Starbucks Wi-Fi thanks to an agreement between AT&T and T-Mobile. But the new AT&T plan allows all customers 2 free hours per day, with a $3.99 fee for additional 2-hour chunks of time. Monthly subscriptions will cost $19.99 and will enable access to other AT&T hot-spot locations in addition to Starbucks.

It’s about @*#&^!$ time! Finally, customers get some amount of wireless access without paying through the nose.

This may actually make me go to Starbucks again on occasion — at least I can check my email with my predictably boring coffee.

Some more details, from Wi-Fi Networking News:

AT&T says in their press release that all Starbucks Card holders, which is simply their value-storing swipe card system, will get two hours of free Wi-Fi a day. No purchase is needed: you just need an active card, I confirmed with the company. Walk in, buy a $5 value card, activate it, and you’re on for two hours a day from then forward. You can also use multiple devices with a single account, within reason, Starbucks told me. AT&T has also lowered the price for usage from T-Mobile’s somewhat egregious $6 per hour or $10 per day to $4 for a two-hour session. The monthly price, like the rest of AT&‘s network, is $20 per month for outsiders, which also includes all 70,000 domestic and international locations in their worldwide roaming network.

But it’s on the point of ISP terms of service that I believe Schneier’s case falls. First, he expresses no concern whatsoever about others stealing his bandwidth from his open network — “pay it forward,” he suggests.

But bandwidth isn’t the only issue here, at least not from the ISP’s standpoint; it’s lost revenue. The reason ISP terms of service forbid customers from sharing bandwidth with neighbors is as much or more about the provider’s need to turn a buck as it is the finite nature of the product.

A big question here is: who’s bandwidth is being shared? The subscriber or the ISP’s? That puts it in “either-or” terms, of course, when really it isn’t so clear cut. Arguments cut both ways.

See also:

• Steal This Wi-Fi
• Is it OK to Share My WiFi? (Series)
• Why Provide Free WiFi?

Whenever I talk or write about my own security setup, the one thing that surprises people — and attracts the most criticism — is the fact that I run an open wireless network at home. There’s no password. There’s no encryption. Anyone with wireless capability who can see my network can use it to access the internet.

I spoke to several lawyers about this, and in their lawyerly way they outlined several other risks with leaving your network open.

While none thought you could be successfully prosecuted just because someone else used your network to commit a crime, any investigation could be time-consuming and expensive. You might have your computer equipment seized, and if you have any contraband of your own on your machine, it could be a delicate situation. Also, prosecutors aren’t always the most technically savvy bunch, and you might end up being charged despite your innocence. The lawyers I spoke with say most defense attorneys will advise you to reach a plea agreement rather than risk going to trial on child-pornography charges.

Personally, I don’t advocate this, but I do provide a Meraki–run SF “Free the Net” node that goes through my home Internet connection. It’s firewalled off from my main internal network, and it’s got QoS inflicted on it to avoid having neighbors using all my (limited…) cable bandwidth, but I too see providing some amount of wireless connectivity as a public good, and neighborly.

San Francisco’s plan to provide citywide wireless Internet access, which foundered last summer when EarthLink pulled out, is being revived by a Mountain View company that wants to turn the city into a test site for its vision of a low-cost, community-powered system.

For what would be the country’s largest so-called mesh network, a system that uses a constellation of “repeater antennas” to spread signals, Meraki says it will donate enough equipment and Internet access to provide free wireless service to all residents. The network would use as many as 15,000 wireless antennas to relay signals from home to home in a type of digital daisy-chain.

I’m already a Meraki node, although I’m sharing out my own service, and not using a Meraki-supplied Internet connection. The equipment’s quite good, though, and perhaps I can eventually replace my Internet connection with one paid for by Meraki!

When Starbucks introduced for-pay Wi-Fi in 2002, it seemed like a great deal (especially for business customers who could expense it). But five years later, the model appears old and stale and ready for a complete overhaul. Prediction: Starbucks will start rolling out free Wi-Fi access within one year.

I wish. This seems to me like a no-brainer from the Starbucks perspective, but then again, I’ve been saying that since they first introduced it (it never really seemed like a “great deal” to me, even at the time—then again, I never could expense it…)

As I’ve written before, I think free Wi-Fi makes good business sense: it brings in customers and makes them happy. (Caveat: this doesn’t necessarily mean a free-for-all. It makes perfect sense to me to give limited-time coupons with a purchase, for example. But the point is to get customers in to your store with a relatively minimum investment.)

The Computerworld article suggests that Starbucks is competing with McDonalds, which has started rolling out free Wi-Fi. Perhaps, although personally, I would never choose between Starbucks and McDonalds on the basis of Wi-Fi access. I just don’t think they have the same target market, at least, not for anyone I know. Then again, the article suggests that increasing access via mobile devices like iPhones might be shaking this up, and that might well be true, as those devices have a completely different usage pattern (I imagine, though I don’t know that this has yet been proven) than laptops.

Regardless of the motivation, I might actually consider going to a Starbucks on occasion if they offered free (or even reasonably priced) Wi-Fi. (Or perhaps that would simply encourage more independents to offer Wi-Fi, something that’s been shockingly lacking in San Francisco, especially as compared to Seattle, for example).

Your San Francisco neighbors are building a free wireless network, and you can be a part of it! With a Meraki repeater, you can connect to the network, expand its reach, and provide access to others.

Right now, we’re giving Meraki Mini repeaters away to SF residents who can see the Free the Net signal, and the network will always be free.

Our network is growing at a healthy rate, with new communities lighting up each month. Even if Free the Net hasn’t made it to your neighborhood yet, we’ll be there soon, and we’d like to let you know when we arrive!

So far, everything was incredibly simple. I just plugged it in, and it worked. (Of course, I did a little QoS work on my router, just in case’s Meraki’s rate limiting wasn’t good enough—I really don’t want to have visitors maxing out my upstream bandwidth and consequently taking out my VoIP service.) I’m not yet on Meraki’s map, but hopefully I will be soon. Perhaps eventually we can get some Meraki-provided DSL lines around here too…
See also:

• Meraki “Free the Network” San Francisco Project Grows

• Is it OK to Share my WiFi? (Series)
• Why Provide Free WiFi?

EarthLink said late Wednesday that it is bailing out of a contract to build San Francisco’s free Wi-Fi service.

Earlier on Wednesday, the city of Houston announced that EarthLink had agreed to pay a $5 million penalty to the city for not meeting its first deadline for building its wireless network. EarthLink has nine months to start construction or figure out a way to get out of the contract altogether.

And now, the company has also dissolved its contract with San Francisco, which was approved in January but was awaiting final approval from San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.

From c|net.

At least Meraki’s independent push to provide wireless access to San Francisco residents is growing, perhaps because of much greater grass-roots, citizen-based involvement?

From a legal standpoint (contract law), it seems possible that Earthlink might just escape the contract entirely (maybe, but there might be details I don’t have) because the Board of Supervisors never really accepted their offer (or never generated a final offer for Earthlink, depending on the details of the situation).

So I think the San Francisco mayor might possible be right to blame the Board of Supervisors, but then again, the Board might be right to say they were right to be leery, given Earthlink’s meltdown:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had stated publicly that he felt the current contract was sufficient, blamed the Board of Supervisors for dragging its feet and blowing the deal.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said the mayor was completely wrong in his assignment of blame.

“The mayor wanted us to rush into a deal that was half-baked,” he said. “And now he’s trying to cover his tracks instead of looking at the real reason this deal fell through which is the fact that EarthLink is having a complete financial meltdown.”