'Wi-fi hack makes plan to ban file-sharers unfair'

News in brief: Whitehall crackdown flawed by easy-to-hack broadband, says TalkTalk

NEWS

ISP TalkTalk has criticised proposals by the government to cut illegal file-sharers' internet access, on the grounds of wi-fi vulnerability to hacking.

In a blog post last week, Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's executive director for strategy and regulation, said a test carried out by the ISP found a high percentage of domestic wi-fi connections are at risk from hacking.

As a result, Heaney said, millions of people could potentially have their connections hijacked by hackers for the purposes of illegal file-sharing and could therefore risk having their internet access cut off unfairly.

file sharing

TalkTalk has criticised government plans to cut off illegal file-sharers
(Photo credit: mutednarayan via Flickr.com under the following Creative Commons licence)

For more, see ISP: Wi-Fi test shows flaw in file-sharing crackdown on ZDNet UK.

Comments

There are 3 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. Ollie Clark

    How's that for reaping what you sow? ISPs have been selling insecure routers for years and now they're complaining about them causing problems.

    • 20 October 2009 09:16
    • Add comment
  2. 2. Guy Reynolds

    Looking on my laptop whilst at home, I can see eight wireless networks other than my own. One is totally open, so open that I can access the admin windows on the router, one is deliberatly open but secured as it is a BT access point, one has WPA encryption and the remainder have WEP. Much to my daughter's annoyance our network has WPA encryption. Why is she so annoyed? Her wireless gaming equipment only has WEP encryption and will not operate with WPA so she can't play online with her friends. I wonder how many households have desecured their networks in order to use games machines and do not realised what they have done.

    • 20 October 2009 10:41
    • Add comment
  3. 3. drew stephenson

    'Wi-fi hack makes plan to ban file-sharers unfair'

    Actually that's not true, what makes the planned action unfair is that it works on a presumption of guilt.

    That there are numerous other flaws with the plan is just secondary after this fundamental point.

    • 20 October 2009 13:06
    • Add comment

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your silicon.com account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ

Get silicon.com's daily newsletter

  • Register on silicon.com

    Enter your email to register

Keep in touch with silicon.com

silicon.com newsletters