Slashdot Mirror
Because Only Terrorists Use 802.11
skinnyd writes "Consultants working for the Department of Homeland Security have announced that the Feds view open WiFi as a means of abetting terrorists, and say that they will compel the open wireless operators will have to close off their nets. 'Homeland Security is putting people in place who will be in a position to say, "If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating."'
So it's a crime to run an insecure network? What about an insecure computer that can be cracked and used to launch an attack, is that a crime too?
Hmm... wonder if that means running a non-up-to-the-latest-patch OS or application is a crime?
can bring down the network of this country very quickly once they are on the network. Tell me, what is to prevent anybody from just signing up the NETWORK with the AOL cds?
Give me a break, goddamn it. Shutting down WiFi security holes will prevent intruders from going on the NETWORK?
I can understand if this is to prevent government agencies or companies with knowledge of government secrets from having wide open WiFi, but for EVERYONE?
Land of the free, just a thought.
geek page at KY speaks
only terrorists use wireless Internet
No, the problem is only Campaign funders run cable networks, wireless is a competitor that is cheap to set up, impossible to control, and very useful. Like the old BBS's, or peer to peer.
The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government. We are all sheep.
Wifi scares them because it's not something they can just turn off like any ISP.
If someone wants to get unfettered access to the internet, if they have some desire and some knowledge they will always be able to. Even if there was no 802.11 whatsoever, I'm sure anyone who is able to take 4 airplanes and crash 3 into major landmarks is also smart enough to physically tap into someones line and gain the access they would have gained through an 802.11 network.
All this will do is cause the end of 802.11 access for most consumers until better security is devised. Corporations should be able to hire people to secure their wireless networks. Geeks will be able to secure their home networks, but right now that is beyond the average consumer. If I tried to tell my father than he should use an SSH tunnel for better security, he would look at me befuddled.
Alright, I agree with the fact that wifi is insecure and it should be regulated, but please please is it really necessary to make everything a terrorist threat in order to convince the US masses nowadays. Why not just give reasonable arguments, facts, instead of saying "it's a terrorist threat, that's all you need to know". Instead of outlining the real dangers, like stolen or falsified information, they have to go on and make a statement that to any half-smart person seems a blatant attempt to get quick public support.
It's bullshitting like that which undermines the trust of intelligent people into the administration.
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
If it's my network and my bandwidth I have every right to do with it as I please. If I want to provide an open gateway to the Internet that is my right. The same right any ISP has to not charge for access.
Regulating things because you are afraid boogey men could possibly use them is a fools game. I could kill you with string cheese. That doesn't mean we should require a minimum standard of conduct on using string cheese.
In case you haven't noticed almost nobody actually follows speed limits on highways. It isn't safe following speed limits on highways. If you don't match the speed of traffic your endangering yourself and others. Laws that are largely ignored as the general public doesn't favor them are wasteful and leave loopholes for various assholes to take away more and more freedoms.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If your admin isn't interested in security, then you've got a bad admin. Government regulations and threats of helping terrorists won't change that.
As far as the security of America goes, there are much more potent problems to deal with before worrying about terrorist's annonymous internet access. Our ports. Our porous borders. Our politicians.
So to sum up: HomSec may have a very valid point, but how they've addressed it is pathetic. There are more important things for the new department to be taking care of. If HomSec latches on to every little "security" problem in America, they'll get nowhere fast. If they choose big problems and start with those, the deparment might even make itself worthwhile.
Insecure wireless networks shouldn't be a matter of National Security, they should be a matter of personal security.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
This is not even remotely done because of security issues.
It's pretty blatantly obvious to anyone involved the security area that security fixes that require "securing the rest of the Internet" just aren't going to work. A good example of this is the attempt to "secure the Internet against spam." The current approach -- trusting other servers on the Internet and trying to simply secure all legtimate mail servers from spammers does not work. Keep in mind that anti-spam measures have nearly universal support, a tremendous number of volunteers, high visibility, and is a well-understood problem. It's pretty well understood now that trying to secure the Internet by securing every possible point of entry is not in the least feasible. The closest anyone has come is USENET, which is a much less critical, more tightly controlled system with the Usenet Death Penalty for offending ISPs -- and even so, as USENET aficionados know, there's still a huge amount of spam.
If the OHS is scared that they won't be able to trace someone because they're coming in from a wireless port, they need to secure all the services that they're concerned about and require a digital identification of some sort. Trying to make the Internet watertight is not, no way, no how going to happen. You can't secure the US and lock the rest of the world out, and you can't secure the entire world. You can't even reasonably secure all the possible points of entry in a state.
This isn't about security. It isn't even about technology.
Ever since Bush signalled that he was willing to back just about anything that "fought terrorism", every stupid agenda out there has managed to include "fighting terrorism". People competing with 802.11b (*cough* telecom corps pushing 3G services, currently being pretty much ignored in favor of the faster, cheaper 802.11b) would love nothing better than to hand their favorite politician a few dollars to "crack down on terrorism" on 802.11b. In contrast, *their* networks are easily monitored, and as evidenced by cells in the past, telecom corps are more than happy to use key escrow and provide information to federal agents. It's a ploy to try to save all those dollars invested in 3G, the marvellous moneymaker where telecom corps can charge you by the kilobyte. It's not a security issue.
Friends, this is US politics at its best -- "campaign contributions" (bribery) at full throttle.
May we never see th
Next week, we will determine that free society is a clear violation of the Homeland Security Act, and anybody trying to exist in one will be detained for as long as is necessary to combat this scourge of free society.
So...we're looking at taking away the ability of 'terrorists' to use free connectivity via 802.11? Do folks have to turn over their ID and proof of residency to get a hotmail address? Do you have to give your ssn# to use the computer at the local library? What about CyberCafes and PCBaangs? I don't see how a wireless lan makes our nation that much more a target for terrorism. Things that one might think are a little more important on the list are: 1) Our borders that are SO resistant to illegal entry [ I have a sponge that stops water better than our borders keep out illegal foreign nationals ] 2) Our ports in which only a small fraction of containers are ever searched. Will it we keep up the status quo until a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) is smuggled in and used against us? 3) Our politicans that are more concerned with their positions of power than the saftey and well being of the citizens they are supposed to represent?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This may be a troll; this may be flaimbait; but please allow me be the first to say:
Fuck The Dept of Homeland Security
Fuck John Ashcroft
Fuck Tom Ridge
Fuck Poindexter
Fuck every single COWARD in this administration who is so afraid of his/her own shadow that they feel the need to break down every door on Earth to hunt down everyone who might be thinking about hurting them. Grow a Goddamn pair and get out of my home; you have no business here. Come back when you have balls and a brain and have a reasonable, legal, Constitutional suggestion for how to truly improve the security of this nation. Until then, just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because you're not helping. I swear to Christ you people deserve to be put on trial for high treason. You've systematically stripped every single American of his/her rights and freedoms one by one, while simultaneously innundated our primary defenses against terrorists with tons and tons of completely irrelevant information. When we asked for a response to Sept 11, we didn't mean just any response; we wanted a REAL response. What the hell are you people thinking??? Have you all completely lost it?? Has every single person in this administration lost any and all sight of what their job is? Mr President, your job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That is your job description, and you need only worry about that. Please, take a moment to sit down and read the thing some time? If you simply do what it tells you to do, you'll automatically be doing everything that you're supposed to do.
This administration has, in my view, taken a complete "ends justify the means" position, and has decided that the rights, liberties, and lives of the American people are irrelevant sidenotes next to their political agendas. I am, at this point, absolutely disgusted with my own government; and I find that completely fucking pathetic.
I love my country with all my heart, but Goddamn my government's a bitch right now.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I knew this was coming, but hoped it wouldn't. Folks, its time to realize that what is going on has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We are witnessing the rapid deployment of a full-scale police state, the likes of which has never been possible in human history. All the signs and seals are there.
I wish all slashdot readers the best of luck. Freedom was great while it lasted. Enjoy it while you still can. May we all survive the coming tragedies and meet on the other side alive and free.
www.enthea.org
More like wi-fi scares them because it's insecure by default and most big corps leave it on default settings without realising that it's the electronic equivelant of dropping your pants and bending over.
I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"
These people need to take action and clean up before the govt gets more motivated to regulate them.
I'm not surprised. It's always been like that.
Before they had Terrorism they had Communism. Everything that didn't fit their agenda was part of a Communist plot.
Maybe you don't remember, but not too long ago, Communists would suck the blood out of your children if they were given the chance. (Funny how all those blood-suckers are now in NATO.)
Who can deny that the best thing that ever happened to this bump-in-the-road, lackluster, infantile, wannabe tricky-dick administration was Osama Bin Laden?*
*I in no way support the actions of either camp of fundamentalists. Bin Laden is as intellectually and spiritually meagre as our own pet idiot.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
My issue is this: we had a good thing. WiFi was really beginning to gain ground, was really going to be something great. Imagine; freely available Internet access for anyone with a laptop supporting the standard (which most do nowadays). It's everywhere, and it's working.
So what does Homeland Security do? Do they go after the holes (numbering hopefully less than WiFi access points) that hackers exploit in the first place? No. Do they go after Microsoft and (gasp!) Linux for security issues? No. What they choose to do instead is to attack something that in fact has little role in the scheme of things, choosing to ignore the real vulnerabilities.
Let me quote that again....
Right, right.... Good to know that since it doesn't matter where they get in, we're going to spend untold millions of dollars to infringe on personal rights so that we can stop them from getting into the places that don't matter. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the DOS attacks on the root Internet servers amount to approximately bupkiss?
What I do like, however, is Sky Dayton (Boingo CEO) saying that wireless security is possible; it just needs to be easier. Right on, Sky; I agree with you completely! Instead of attaching labels to something so that it can be instantly regulatable (I'm pretty sure that's a word), he's opting to make wireless security ma- and pa- friendly.
And isn't that what it's ultimately about?
Actually, I believe the point is that it is right now 2002, and in either 2 or 6 years someone other than Bush will be in office. He's on year 2 of a 4 year term. This ridiculous idea ranks right up there with outlawing cash because the terrorists might mug us and take our wallets. "Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," huh? So let's outlaw AOL, anyone can stick an AOL cd in their computer and get internet access. Terrorists are the real-world equivalent of trolls, and every time we make a rediculous, reactionary lawto try to stop them, they just laugh that much harder.
And, here's what I really don't get:
Does that guy honestly believe that getting into one Wi-Fi network can allow someone to bring down the entire Internet? And if he does, hm, maybe he should look at the original ARPA spec, compare it to the current topography of the 'net, and break up a few megacorps, hm?
Let's not forget that the people making these boneheaded pronouncements are rich white men who remember when color TV came out and they got one for their kids. The internet is a really scary unknown thing. They know it's incredibly powerful... and not much else.
But if they do manage to ban AOL from sending out those disks, I'm going to have to buy them a cookie.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
is it just me, or when you read articles like this you remember how you read the book 1984 in the early 90's a chuckled about how it wasn't accurate. Then everyday since you have noticed how this country has moved closer and closer to being something out of that book?
Wired's article implies that they're trying to protect us from attackers using a wireless access point to launch a significant attack on the Internet itself. "We know that (an attack) could bring down the network of this country very quickly. Once you're on the network, it doesn't matter where you got in," were the words of the Homeland Security representative.
That's true, but stupid. By exactly their "logic", a terrorist or criminal could launch the same attack whether they connect through an unsecured wireless network or any other way. So unless they have a comprehensive strategy for making sure that terrorists can't get internet access *at all* then this doesn't accomplish anything. So either the administration doesn't realize this, or they do but they're using it as a smoke screen for some real reason, or it's being misreported. Frankly, I'd give about equal odds to all three.
Then when somebody uses your open network to cause havoc and destruction, you should be held liable as a facillitator of their crimes. Seems totally fair to me.
My local supermarket has a payphone out front. We need to hold the supermarket liable as a facillitator of any drug deals made over that phone. Don't forget to hold Home Depot liable for murder when someone gets bashed in the head with a brick.
Jeez, and your post got a 5?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"One of the many ways terrorists and their cells/hierarchy communicate is through the net "
You don't know who terrorists are until after they commit the crime.
Those 9/11 terrorists had access to telephones, internet and everything else, none of them needed to use open Wifi.
If anything, Arabs driving around with a scanner looking for an open WiFi connection would have alerted the authorities to a problem!
Notice they specifically go after Open WiFi, but they could have gone after free ISPs or Internet PayPhones.
(In Europe there are Internet public payphones, so I assume the US has them too.)
Nobody (outside of China) has gone after Internet Cafe's, nobody has even mentioned public Internet Payphones, only WiFi.
So this must be a commercial agenda aimed at closing Open WiFi connections.
Gotta be that COMETA consortium pushing this drivel.
How many people here even know how their own representaives voted on Homeland Security? For the record, here is the official list of who in Congress voted for and against the creation of Homeland Security:
House Roll Call
Senate Roll Call
(Interesting note, Senator Hollywood voted against. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.)
Is your senator in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your senator expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. (Not their federal office, snail mail doesn't get through there any more due to extended antrax checks.) They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
Is your congressman in favor of Homeland Security? Are you? If the answer to those is not the same, then write a one page letter to your congressman expressing your extreme displeasure with his/her actions. No, not tomorrow, not when you have time, RIGHT F*ING NOW! Fax it or snail mail it to their local office. They represent YOU! If they're not doing it right, make it clear to them.
But what if they did vote the way you wanted them to? WRITE THEM A LETTER OF THANK YOU! Everyone likes positive feedback from the people who control their job. If your senator was one of the nine dissenters, thank them for standing up for what is right! Include with the snail mail letter a check (not cash) for $100 to their campaign fund. Polticians speak two languages; votes and money. Speak your mind in both, in enough numbers, and they WILL listen.
While you're at it, write a short OpEd for the local newspaper. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe they'll publish it, maybe they won't, but they definitely won't if you don't send it.
This is a democracy. Your government SPEAKS FOR YOU! Your representatives represent YOU. Remind them of it. Daily. Make them scared shitless of losing their job if they cross you. Their first thought when they wake up should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" Their last thought before going to bed should be "am I pissing off the people who vote for me?" As a voter, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that those who claim to represent you actually do.
250,000 Slashdot voters is 500 times the difference in Florida in 2000, for a Presidential election. Imagine the sheer power of that electorate in congressional elections, if only it would get up off its collective ass and do something.
The Patriot Act of 2001 labels many so-called computer crimes "terrorism." I openly state, I am a terrorist. I seek to instill terror in the hearts of my government of trampling on my freedoms, or of voting against my will. I seek to make my government live in fear of me and my power over them. I seek to give George W. Bush nightmares of crossing me.
I am a voter. Are you?
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Don't think it's just America that's gone to pot.
:-)
This is happening everywhere where there are politicians, because the Internet and all computing and advances in communications are undermining the power that governments once had in being able to monitor and control their subjugate populations. The idiocy which you see is a response to their belated realization of the new freedoms which people have acquired over the last few years, their panicked attempt to regain control. All the bogeymen are being deployed, "Stop Terrorism", "Protect the Children", even "Safeguard your Culture" in many places.
So, since the highest level of security is so important to them, comply: use the strongest encryption possible, everywhere. This will of course also make your systems unbreachable and unmonitorable by them as well. Oh dear.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
how when we really need regulation, like keeping all the cable companies out of the internet business (net control + content ownership = lost rights and caps) the gov is keen to look the other way?
We're not far off from more examples of Starbucks-taking-over-wifi-everywhere. R.I.P. free and open networks.
If they are going to go after 802.11b because of easy access, why not go after all the bell operators for pay phones since they could be used to plot terrorism? Why not go after all the radio shacks because equipment they sell can be used to make bombs?
This may sound like irrational conspiracy theory, but I actually think that this isn't about terrorism. It is a "foot in the water" test to slowly start regulating the net, and with it free speech.
Just my $.02...
--Jon
The sad thing is that the terrorists are the only ones with any balls to stand up to the government.
The sad thing is that you felt compelled, and justifiably so, to post that insightful yet "Anti-Amarikin" remark as an AC. Just keep in mind that in the future, anonymous posting on Slashdot may have to be eliminated...because only Terrorists post as Anonymous Cowards.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I actually asked a 3com sales guy about it a year ago and got "Well personally there is nothing on my network worth breaking into and I doubt there is anything on yours either"
I know you realize this, but I feel like spelling it out for everyone who would read this sentiment and agree... Even if you don't have any DATA on your network that any hacker would want, you still have a NETWORK that hackers would love to control. 9999 times out of 10,000 "hackers" are not looking for blueprints on your top secret inventions that they could sell to a competitor. They are not looking for your credit card databases, nor your emails to use as blackmail. 9999 times out fo 10,000 they are not looking for data AT ALL! Instead they are looking for a network that they can control that will allow them to go and attack a DIFFERENT network. IF you wanted to hack into the DOD's computer network, would you do it from your home machine? Or ould you do it through a series of hacked accounts on other networks? If you are hosting child porn, would you prefer to have it sitting on the machine under your desk at the office, or would you prefer to put it on somone elses machine entirely?
If you think you are safe becuase there is no important *data* on your machines that hackers would want, you are not safe.
Next time you get this kind of answer make sure you get in writing the guy's willingness to take full responsibility when the MiBs come knocked at your door becuase your hacked machine was used to send death threats to the president.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"