In Utah, Representative Bradley Daw has introduced a bill, HB 139, that would effectively end all free wireless internet access in Utah. Why? Because Rep. Daw thinks minors might use open wireless access points to access porn and therefore free wireless access must be stopped.

Jeremy describes this as the unintended consequences of legislating morality. He is exactly correct. And the unintended consequences are very large because this bill would impose civil penalties on anyone who has a wireless access point which a minor uses to access porn. If a minor uses the internet in a hotel lobby to access a pornographic picture–$1000 fine. If a minor accesses “harmful material” at restaurant, at a library, at a cafe, at a truck stop, or outside someone’s house–$1000 fine per violation.

Rep. Daw’s bill tries to exempt private internet connections, but there’s a good argument that anyone who keeps their wireless connection open and unencrypted could get fined. Here’s Rep. Daw’s language designed to exempt home internet connections, “This section does not apply to a person who maintains a wireless network within the person’s private residence to provide personal wireless Internet access.”

Is an wireless access point inside my house that broadcasts outside it “within my private residence”? It doesn’t sound like it. Second, in today’s world all wireless internet connections that are unencrypted are arguably an invitation for neighbors to use and are therefore not “personal wireless access.”

At this moment, my wireless card picks up signals from 13 different wireless access points. Twelve of the 13 wireless access points use encryption, but one does not. One generous person is freely offering their internet connection to his or her neighbors.

Why do I believe this? When you set up a wireless router for the first time, the router strongly suggests that you enable encryption. Yet one person somewhere near me chose not to encrypt their wi-fi. This person had that option (they are using a Netgear router), and instead chose to freely offer internet to her neighbors.

If I lived in Utah and a minor accessed porn through my neighbor’s router, there is a good argument that my neighborhood is civilly liable for a $1000 fine per violation.

What irritates me most about is that Rep. Daw understands all of this. He is a computer engineer. He also claims to support limited government. And yet he wants intrusive government regulation that effectively ends free internet in Utah and requires everyone to turn on encryption on their personal wireless routers.